Opinion ID: 2417534
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Record of probable-cause proceeding

Text: On October 22, 1993, the state filed a motion to determine whether probable cause existed to charge appellant with the crime. The motion recites that appellant was arrested for the crime by the Hot Spring County Sheriff's Department on October 20, 1993, had been in the sheriff's custody since arrest, and that probable cause time would expire on October 22, 1993, unless probable cause to charge was found. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 4.1(e) provides that a person arrested without a warrant shall not be held in custody unless a judicial officer determines from an affidavit, recorded testimony, or other information, that there is reasonable cause to believe that the person committed an offense. Rule 4.1(e) further provides that the judicial determination shall be made within forty-eight hours of the time of arrest, except in extraordinary circumstances, and may be made at the first appearance of the arrested person pursuant to Ark.R.Crim.P. 8.1. See also Ark.R.Crim.P. 8.3(c). These rules protect the federal constitutional right of a person to a judicial determination of probable cause as a prerequisite to extended restraint of liberty following arrest. Gerstein v. Pugh, 420 U.S. 103, 95 S.Ct. 854, 43 L.Ed.2d 54 (1975). At this preliminary stage, the state is required to present proof that justifies the accused's arrest, not to establish the accused's guilt. In this case, the circuit court docket for October 22, 1993, states: Informal probable cause hearingBased on affidavit probable cause for charge of capital murder foundBond set at $1,000,000.00P. Lemons appointedHearing set for October for plea and arraignment On October 22, 1993, the state filed the Information With Affidavit charging appellant with the victim's capital murder, together with the supporting Affidavit And Statement Of Probable Cause of Lieutenant Doug Williams of the Arkansas State Police. Lieutenant Williams's affidavit, dated October 22, 1993, recites that it is made for the purpose of obtaining an arrest warrant for appellant and charging him with the crime. A bench warrant for appellant was issued, served and filed on October 22, 1993. Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his request that a record be made of the probable-cause proceeding, and that, as an indigent, the federal constitutional due-process guarantee absolutely entitled him to a record. We understand this argument to be a request for a verbatim transcription of the probable-cause proceeding. This argument is meritless. Our Rule 4.1(e) provided that the judicial determination of probable cause at the October 22 proceeding could be made from affidavit, recorded testimony, or other information. The state chose the affidavit method. Lieutenant Williams's October 22 affidavit, which was the basis for the judicial determination of probable cause, and the bench warrant are a part of the record on appeal. On these facts, we determine that appellant was not constitutionally entitled to a verbatim transcription of the probable-cause proceeding. Lieutenant Williams's October 22 affidavit and the bench warrant, which are included in the record on appeal, satisfied appellant's constitutional requirements to due process at this most preliminary stage of the criminal proceedings.