Court Opinion

ID: 9674246
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:25:29.035223+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:26.344647
License: Public Domain

Robert L. Brown, Justice, dissenting. What was proved in this case was that Rammie E. Hall was a thief and a liar. No substantial evidence was presented that he was a'murderer. I would reverse this conviction. Sam DeClerk, the victim, lived on an isolated ranch in Randolph County. He was something of a recluse, and it was not unusual for him not to be seen for weeks. No one saw him between the night of December 12, 1990, and the day his body was discovered in bed on December 28, 1990. No murder weapon was found. No physical evidence of Hall’s presence was found at the crime scene. DeClerk’s guns were missing but the stolen guns have not been located and have never been tied to Hall. An autopsy was performed on January 2, 1991 — three weeks after December 12,1990, the assumed date of death — and Dr. Violette Hnillica testified that she could not pinpoint the date of death. What follows is cross-examination by the defense: Q: From your medical findings in the autopsy, were you able to give a specific date as to when this person was killed? A: No, not at all. Q: And as far as whether he was killed, for medical purposes, on December 12 or the 13th or the 14th, is there anyway you could determine the date of death? A: I wouldn’t be able to determine that. Q: Is there any way for medical purposes for you to be able to determine the approximate time in the daytime or . . . A: No, sir. On redirect, she added that her findings were consistent with a December 12, 1990 date of death, but on recross, she again admitted that she could not pinpoint date of death other than to say that the victim had been dead a long time and that her “estimate” was even longer than December 12, 1990. Date of death is, therefore, uncertain. For circumstantial evidence to constitute substantial evidence, it must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis inconsistent with the guilt of Hall. Green v. State, 313 Ark. 87, 852 S.W.2d 110 (1993); Chism v. State, 312 Ark. 559, 853 S.W.2d 255 (1993). Ordinarily, that is for the factfinder to resolve. Boone v. State, 282 Ark. 274, 668 S.W.2d 17 (1984). Our responsibility is to decide whether the jury resorted to speculation and conjecture in reaching its verdict. Id. We have recently affirmed murder convictions or declared error based on circumstantial evidence but in each case there was more proof than exists in the instant case. See Owens v. State, 313 Ark. 520, 856 S.W.2d 288 (1993) (Defendant was at the rest stop soliciting sex from truck drivers the night of the murder and was seen the next morning with lacerations on her arm, back, and neck. She told a friend that she had stabbed a truck driver and a bloody knife was found in the area.); Walker v. State, 313 Ark. 478, 855 S.W.2d 932 (1993) (Defendant was present at the shooting and claimed that the victim’s death was a suicide. The medical examiner testified that it was not a contact wound and that the manner of death indicated murder.); State v. Long, 311 Ark. 248, 844 S.W.2d 302 (1992) (Victim was struck by a vehicle and her hair was found on the defendant’s car.); Hill v. State, 299 Ark. 327, 773 S.W.2d 424 (1989) (Defendant was seen fleeing from the area in what could have been minutes after victim’s death and possessed stolen property from the victim’s home.); Ferguson v. State, 298 Ark. 600, 769 S.W.2d 418 (1989) (Defendant and an accomplice were seen behind the victim’s apartment on the night she was killed and then fled to Kansas City. He later confessed to burglary and stated that the accomplice killed the victim.) Proof of theft should not equate to proof of murder. A verdict based on the evidence offered can only be conjectural. I respectfully dissent. Holt, C.J., joins.