Case Title: Landreth v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1998-01-08T00:00:00Z

Document:
George LANDRETH v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-716                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered January 8, 1998


1.   Constitutional law -- Fifth Amendment -- comment on defendant's failure to
     testify forbidden. -- A prosecutor may not draw attention to the
     fact of, or comment on, a defendant's failure to testify;
     otherwise, by commenting on his silence, the State makes the
     defendant a witness against himself and thereby violates the
     defendantþs Fifth Amendment rights; even a veiled reference to
     the defendant's silence is improper.

2.   Constitutional law -- Fifth Amendment -- test for determining whether
     reference to failure to testify was harmless error. -- References to a
     defendant's failure to testify violate the Fifth Amendment
     privilege against self-incrimination but can be harmless error
     if it is shown beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did
     not influence the verdict; practical application of this test
     involves excising the improper remarks and examining the
     remaining evidence to determine if it can be shown beyond a
     reasonable doubt that the error did not influence the verdict.

3.   Constitutional law -- Fifth Amendment -- overwhelming evidence of
     appellant's guilt rendered improper prosecutorial comments harmless beyond
     reasonable doubt. -- After discarding a witness's testimony that
     was tainted by the prosecutor's argument, the supreme court
     determined that there remained overwhelming evidence of
     appellant's guilt that rendered the improper comments on
     appellant's right to silence harmless beyond a reasonable
     doubt where the State presented the testimony of two other
     witnesses to whom appellant confessed his crime, and where the
     testimony of the two witnesses was also independently
     corroborated by the physical evidence collected by the State;
     the supreme court held that the prosecutor's comment on
     appellant's failure to testify did not constitute reversible
     error.

4.   Motions -- continuance -- trial court's discretion. -- A motion for a
     continuance is addressed to the sound discretion of the trial
     court, and the court's decision will not be reversed absent an
     abuse of discretion.

5.   Motions -- continuance -- good cause and consideration of public's interest
     required. -- Continuances are governed in part by Ark. R. Crim.
     P. 27.3, which requires good cause and a consideration of the
     public's interest in a prompt disposition of cases.

6.   Motions -- continuance -- affidavit requirements. -- Continuances are
     governed in part by Ark. Code Ann.  16-63-402(a) (1987),
     which requires an affidavit from the defense showing the
     materiality of the evidence expected to be obtained and that
     due diligence has been used to obtain it; if the motion is for
     an absent witness, the affidavit must show what facts the
     affiant believes the witness will prove and not merely show
     the effect of the facts in evidence, that the affiant himself
     believes them  to be true, and that the witness is not absent
     by the consent, connivance, or procurement of the party asking
     the postponement; the supreme court has further required that
     the movant for a continuance show by affidavit the likelihood
     of procuring the absent witness.

7.   Motions -- continuance -- appellant failed to show that trial court abused
     its discretion in denying. -- Appellant failed to show that the
     trial court abused its discretion in denying his motion for
     continuance where appellant made no showing of any likelihood
     of procuring the absent testimony; where all that he presented
     was an anonymous letter that purported to set forth
     exculpatory evidence; and where the record did not reveal that
     appellant had ever filed an affidavit showing the materiality
     of the evidence expected to be obtained or that due diligence
     had been used to obtain that evidence, as required by Ark.
     Code Ann.  16-63-402(a); finally, appellant could not succeed
     in his argument that the State violated Brady v. Maryland,