Case Title: Miller v. State

Citation: 457 S.W.2d 848

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1970-09-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
457 S.W.2d 848 (1970) Lloyd D. MILLER, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. No. 5515. Supreme Court of Arkansas. September 21, 1970. H. Clay Robinson, Ft. Smith, for appellant. Joe Purcell, Atty. Gen., Milton R. Luekin, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee. BROWN, Justice. Appellant Lloyd D. Miller was convicted of robbery and the jury imposed the maximum punishment of twenty-one years. For reversal appellant contends he was forced to trial in prison garb after being denied the opportunity to obtain civilian clothing. He also attacks as prejudicial certain closing remarks of the deputy prosecuting attorney. The State offered uncontroverted proof that appellant waited in the home of the prosecuting witness until she arrived after closing her business around 8:00 p. m.; that she was knocked to the floor by being struck with the stock of a shotgun and in other respects roughly treated; that appellant obtained approximately $700 from the witness; and that after his unsuccessful attempt to start her car, appellant left the premises. No evidence was offered to refute any of the summarized testimony. Appellant was transferred from the penitentiary to the Pulaski County jail on the afternoon preceding the trial. The record shows that appellant and his court-appointed counsel met with the trial judge in chambers just before time for trial. Based upon the undisputed representations made to the court by appellant's attorney we conclude that a continuance should have been granted to allow appellant a reasonable time in which to make arrangements for civilian attire. That is because of the rule, supported by a strong majority, that absent a waiver accused should not be forced to trial in prison garb. See Ring v. State, 450 S.W.2d 85 (Tex.Cr.App.1970); People v. Shaw, 381 Mich. 467, 164 N.W.2d 7 (1969); United States ex rel. Diamond v. Social Service Department, 263 F. Supp. 971 (Pa.1967); Collins v. State, 70 Okl.Cr. 340, 106 P.2d 273 (Okl.1940); Brooks v. Texas, 381 F.2d 619 (1967); Shultz v. State, 131 Fla. 757, 179 So. 764 (1938); Dennis v. Dees, 278 F. Supp. 354 (1968); Eaddy v. People, 115 Colo. 488, 174 P.2d 717 (1946); and Commonwealth v. Keeler, 216 Pa.Super. 193, 264 A.2d 407 (1970). The basic rule is summarized in 21 Am.Jur.2d Criminal Law, § 239: The second point for reversal, namely, that the prosecuting attorney made an improper reference to the defendant's failure to testify, is not likely to arise at the second trial. That is because the court recognized its impropriety and so informed the deputy prosecuting attorney. Reversed.