Court Opinion

ID: 9674194
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:24:32.429379+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:26.022729
License: Public Domain

Conley Byrd, Justice. I concur in the reversal, but dissent as to the portion of the opinion that holds that Robbie White was not an accomplice. The recognized test as to whether a person is an accomplice is set forth in Murphy Alias Carraway v. State, 130 Ark. 353 (1917), in this language: . . An accomplice in the full and generally accepted legal signification of the word is one who in any manner participates in the criminality of an act, whether he is considered in strict legal propriety as a principal in the first or second degree or merely as an accessory before or after the fact.” In holding that a thief and a receiver of the stolen property were accomplices, Justice Frank Smith went on to state: “The opinions on this subject are more or less abstruse and deal with learning more or less ancient, but without attempting to review all these cases, we announce our conclusion to be that the receiver of stolen goods and the thief from whom he received them are accomplices within the meaning of section 2384 of Kirby’s Digest, which provides that a conviction can not be had in any case of felony upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense. This view comports with the definition of an accomplice given in the case of Polk v. State, supra, and approvingly quoted in the case of Atchison v. State, supra. We think, too, that this view conforms to the spirit and reason which led to the rule of evidence enacted in this State by what is now section 2384 of Kirby’s Digest. One who steals, or who knowingly receives stolen goods, is a felon, and would have the quite human desire of sharing his guilt with another, if he were so far unable to exculpate himself as that he must confess his own guilt. Men are prone to take to themselves full credit for their successes and to charge to others responsibility for their failures. So one charged with crime will likely excuse himself and escape punishment, if possible, or, if this be impossible, he will be tempted to have some one share with him the censure and condemnation attendant upon detection. To protect the innocent against such frailty of human nature, it is provided by statute that one who confesses his own guilt can not condemn another, unless his statement is corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the person so accused with the commission of the offense confessed, and that this corroboration shall not be held sufficient if it merely shows the commission of the crime charged and the circumstances thereof.” The reason for holding that a purchaser was not an accomplice in a prosecution for sale of intoxicating liquors was stated in Foster v. State, 45 Ark. 361, 366 (1885), in this language: “The buyer of liquor, however, is guilty of no offense under this act, although he aids in and procures the making of the sale. The statute has marked the seller as the only criminal. ‘In cases of mala prohibita, the fact that the penalty is imposed on only one of two parties whose concurrence is requisite to the commission of the offense, and that the statute was made for the protection of the other party, who is generally regarded as the less culpable of the two, has repeatedly been considered good ground for giving the statute a construction exempting the party not named from criminal liability.’ ” The case of Rich v. State, 176 Ark. 1205, 2 S. W. 2d 40 (1928), relied upon by the majority as holding the purchaser not an accomplice when he had also violated the law by purchase does not support the statement in the majority opinion. In fact C & M Digest § 6169 is not even mentioned in the opinion. Furthermore, a reading of § 6169, supra, shows that it only made it unlawful for one to possess beverages transported in interstate commerce at a fruit stand, bowling alley, drug store, livery stable or in any club or club room of any social or fraternal organization. The law here in question (Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-2110) provides: “It shall be unlawful for any person, except as provided herein, to use, possess, have in one’s possession, sell, exchange, give or attempt to give to another, barter or otherwise dispose of: (1) lysergic acid, (2) LSD (d-lysergic acid diethylamide), (3) DMT (N-N-dimethyltryptamine), (4) any compound, mixture or preparation which is physiologically similar to any drug listed in (1), (2) and (3) above in its effect on the central nervous system, or (5) any salt or derivative of any drug listed in (1), (2) and (3).” As can be seen from the above statute the seller is not the only criminal. In fact the user and possessor are equally as condemned. The law could have been written to protect the user and possessor, but it was not. Act 590 of 1971 has remedied the defeat in the foregoing act by reducing the act of using and possession to a misdemeanor. For the reasons set out above, I conclude that Robbie White was an accomplice, that the trial court properly so instructed the jury and furthermore that there was no competent evidence to convict the appellant. With respect to the public policy dealing with the corroboration of evidence of accomplices, I can find no reason to require any stricter evidence to convict a thief than to convict a drug violator. The absurdity of the majority’s distinction between the two can be demonstrated in the case of a thief who steals drugs having more than $35 in value and sells them to one who knows them to be stolen. Under the majority opinion the testimony of the purchaser would be insufficient to convict the thief of larceny but sufficient to convict the thief of selling drugs. Since the receiver and possessor of the stolen drugs would be a felon under the receiving of stolen goods act and a felon as a possessor under the drug act, I am at a loss to explain the majority’s distinction. For the reasons stated I respectfully dissent.