Case Title: Landrum v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR96-494

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-12-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
Larry LANDRUM v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-494                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered December 23, 1996


1.   Criminal procedure -- purpose of Ark. R. Crim. P. 8.1 --
     statements made by accused after unnecessary delay in
     arraignment not automatically excluded. -- Rule 8.1 of the
     Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, in addition to guarding
     against the coercive influence of custodial interrogation,
     insures that the accused is placed in early contact with a
     judicial officer so that protections covered by preliminary
     arraignment are afforded without delay, that the right to
     counsel may be clearly explained and implemented upon the
     accused's request, and that the accused is protected from
     being held incommunicado for protracted periods of time; Rule
     8.1 is designed to "afford an arrestee protection against
     unfounded invasion of liberty and privacy"; if an unnecessary
     delay in arraignment occurs, statements given by the accused
     are not automatically excluded; rather, the court considers
     whether the statement is prejudicial and whether it is
     reasonably related to the delay. 

2.   Criminal procedure -- no unnecessary delay occurred between
     time appellant questioned about murder and time he confessed -
     - no policy reason existed for application of exclusionary
     rule. -- Where there was no unnecessary delay in arraigning
     appellant on the murder charge, he had repeatedly been given
     his Miranda warning, there was no unnecessary delay between
     the time the officers first questioned appellant about the
     murder and the time he confessed, and, most importantly, no
     police misconduct occurred during the appellant's
     incarceration; there was no policy reason to apply the
     exclusionary rule to appellant's statement.

3.   Criminal procedure -- exclusionary rule -- purpose of. --   
     The purpose of Miranda and its progeny was to inhibit police
     misconduct, not the making of incriminating statements;
     coercive police activity is a necessary predicate to finding
     a confession involuntary within the meaning of the Due Process
     Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

4.   Criminal procedure -- exclusionary rule -- purpose in context
     of Fourth Amendment. -- Brown v. U.S,