Title: Bell v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Albert BELL v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 95-417                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered April 29, 1996


1.   Criminal law -- controverted confession -- all material
     witnesses must be produced. -- Whenever an accused offers
     testimony that his confession was induced by violence,
     threats, coercion or offers of reward, the State has the
     burden to produce all material witnesses who were connected
     with the controverted confession or to give an explanation for
     their absence; in determining whether a witness is "material,"
     there must be some connection between the witness and the
     alleged acts of coercion or an opportunity to observe the
     alleged coercion.  

2.   Criminal law -- state failed to meet its burden to produce
     material witness or provide adequate explanation for his
     absence -- cause remanded for new hearing on appellant's
     suppression motion. -- Appellant's suppression motion raised
     the issue of the involuntariness of his statements to the
     police, and because the detective was a material witness
     connected with those controverted statements, and the State
     failed to meet its burden to produce him as a witness at the
     suppression hearing or to explain his absence, appellant
     should have been afforded the opportunity to cross-examine
     both witnesses concerning their respective roles when
     questioning appellant; the cause was remanded for a new
     hearing on appellant's suppression motion. 

3.   New trial -- when ordered. -- A new trial should be ordered
     only if the trial judge finds appellant's confession to have
     been involuntary.  

4.   Venue -- when change of venue should be granted -- burden and
     standard on review. -- A change of venue should be granted
     only when it is clearly shown that a fair trial is not likely
     to be had in the county; the burden is on the defendant, and
     the decision of the trial judge will be upheld unless it is
     shown that there was an abuse of discretion in denying the
     motion. 

5.   Venue -- witnesses who state appellant could not receive fair
     trial in that particular venue -- proof required to be shown.
     --  In seeking a change of venue, those witnesses who state
     that the appellant cannot receive a fair trial must be able to
     show that they either have a general knowledge as to the state
     of mind of the inhabitants of the whole county or that they
     are cognizant of prejudice existing throughout the whole
     county; further, affidavits that cite little or nothing beyond
     an affiant's own convictions that a fair trial is not possible
     are insufficient. 

6.   Venue -- voir dire safeguards against pretrial publicity --
     denial of change of venue not error where impartial jury is
     selected. -- Voir dire of the jury provides adequate
     safeguards against pretrial publicity; there can be no error
     in the denial of a change of venue if an examination of the
     jury selection shows that an impartial jury was selected and
     that each juror stated he or she could give the defendant a
     fair trial and follow the instructions of the court.  

7.   Venue -- affidavits and other proof submitted by appellant
     insufficient -- denial of motion to change venue not error. -- 
     Where the affidavits of county residents submitted by
     appellant were insufficient to show the state of mind of the
     county concerning appellant's trial; where only one of the
     eight affiants testified in court, and when doing so,
     countered her earlier averments; where appellant presented
     three news-media witnesses who related the numerous stories
     that were published or aired in the county concerning the
     crimes committed; where, however, testimony established the
     limited nature of the various paper's circulations and the
     relatively small number of articles actually published
     pertaining to appellant; where it was established that a
     number of veniremen were excused because of their beliefs
     regarding the death penalty, not pretrial publicity; and where
     twelve jurors were seated who indicated they could make an
     impartial decision based solely on the evidence, the supreme
     court found that the trial court did not abuse its discretion
     in denying appellant's request for a change of venue.

8.   Jury -- potential jurors may not be challenged solely on basis
     of race -- requirements for establishing prima facie case of
     racial discrimination. -- Batson v. Kentucky,