Court Opinion

ID: 9776786
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:44:40.568205+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:42.515446
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. The majority accurately states that an objection must be made to the trial court with sufficient clarity that the court has an opportunity to consider the argument. In the present case the motion to quash the information quoted in the majority opinion was filed by the appellant on March 19, 1982. Another motion to quash the information was filed on April 12, 1982, which motion questioned the issue of appellant’s charge of capital murder as related to the burglary charge giving rise to the capital felony provisions. The trial court held an omnibus hearing on May 17,1982, at which time the court denied both motions to quash the information. A review of the record indicates the trial court had a fair opportunity to both discern and consider the arguments presented in both motions to quash and after due consideration denied these motions. Nowhere in the record, abstracts or briefs is there even any allegation that the trial court was not afforded an opportunity to fairly consider these arguments. Furthermore, in the case of Ward v. State, 272 Ark. 99, 62 S.W.2d 118 (1981), this court stated, “When a motion in limine is overruled, no further objection is needed.” This court has subsequently held in the case of Smith v. State, 273 Ark. 47, 616 S.W.2d 14 (1981): If a sufficiently specific motion is overruled, then it may not be necessary for counsel to renew his objection if the specific prejudicial matter is later introduced. In light of these previous decisions I feel that it is not necessary that the defendant re-raise these issues at trial in order to preserve the points for consideration on appeal. A square is a rectangle but a rectangle is not necessarily a square. The overwhelming evidence in this case against the appellant was that he went to the home of the victim with a clear intent to murder her or otherwise cause her serious bodily harm. The facts indicate that the appellant arrived at her residence and found that she was asleep inside. In furtherance of his objective he entered the residence, shot her while she slept and escaped from the residence. The prosecutor initially filed charges of first degree murder against the appellant but later changed his mind and decided to go for the ultimate by filing an information charging him with capital murder. Our capital murder statute, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1501 (Repl. 1977), states in pertinent part: A person commits capital murder if: (a) Acting alone ... he commits or attempts to commit . . . burglary . . . and in the course of and in the furtherance of the felony . .. he ... causes the death of any person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life ... It is abundantly clear in my mind that the appellant was not “in the course of and in the furtherance of” the burglary when he shot and killed his victim. In any other context, the above-quoted phrase is without meaning. The actions of the defendant involved a single episode which would come under the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-105 (Repl. 1977) establishing burglary as a lesser included offense of first degree murder in this case. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1502 states: (1) A person commits murder in the first degree if: (a) .. . (b) with the premeditated and deliberate purpose of causing the death of another person, he causes the death of any person. The evidence presented in this case clearly establishes that the appellant was guilty of first degree murder. The jury considered the evidence and found the appellant guilty of killing his victim. The law states that this is first degree murder. I feel that this court should take it upon itself to change the appellant’s conviction to first degree murder in deference to the law and the facts of this case and reduce his sentence to life in prison which would be the proper conviction and sentence under our statute. The state in this case attempted to bootstrap lesser charges into greater charges without respect to the clear wording of our statutes and the considerations of our judicial system. The prosecutor is an officer of the court just as is a defense counsel. It should be the duty of the officers of the court to put into practice the clear intent and wording of our laws and not to overreach the statutes. The appellant in this case clearly was not committing a burglary which incidentally resulted in the death of another person. Quite to the contrary, in the cómmission of a first degree murder he committed the burglary. I must respectfully dissent.