Court Opinion

ID: 9666714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 01:26:13.797858+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:06.278181
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. There was no need for the majority to establish a new rule, not supported by case law, that a judge need not recuse when he is asked to determine the validity of a search warrant he had previously authorized before the case was filed by the state. The rules stated in Bliss v. State, 282 Ark. 315, 668 S.W.2d 976 (1984), and Adams v. State, 269 Ark. 548, 601 S.W.2d 881 (1980) are correct decisions and should have been followed in this case. When the sufficiency of the evidence for probable cause for the search warrant is contested, the issuing magistrate should not review his own prior action. Even though he was most sincere and honest in upholding his prior action, such a ruling would still give the appearance of unfairness. I agree that the first Bliss decision was not reversed solely on the issue of the judge subsequently ruling on the validity of a search warrant issued by him. We had other grounds for reversal and therefore did not have to place much emphasis on the search warrant issue. But the reasoning of the majority for overruling Bliss is unconvincing. The cases from other jurisdictions which are relied upon by the majority are inapposite. The first case is State v. Thompson, 724 P.2d 1223 (Ariz. App. 1986). I quote from page 1225 of the above case: “The only argument raised in this appeal is that the trial court erred by denying the motion for a change of judge” because the trial judge had presided over the trial of a co-defendant. It is essential to note that a different judge heard this motion and denied it. Thus it would seem to me that the Arizona case supports the dissent in this case. The majority cites State ex rel. French v. Hendricks Superior Court, 247 N.E. 2d 519 (Ind. 1969) and I must admit it addresses the issue of probable cause when it states: “Further, the mere fact that a judge has ruled upon a showing of probable cause does not necessarily disqualify that judge from trying that case on its merits.” However, the French case arose out of a situation where no probable cause hearing had been held before an arrest warrant had been issued. Therefore, it is very obvious that the judge hearing the probable cause issue was not the issuing judge because no judge issued the warrant. Because the affidavit of probable cause for arrest was not filed until thirty days after French had been arrested, the Indiana appellate court held the warrant to be null and void. In any event, the judge ruling on the validity of the warrant was not ruling on the reliability of his previous action. Reading v. Ball, 354 S.E.2d 397 (S.C. App. 1987), concerned a divorce proceeding in which a woman tried to get the presiding judge to recuse because she alleged that he was biased against her. Certainly Reading stands for the proposition that a judge need not recuse from considering its prior action in the same case, but it in no manner relates to a judge ruling upon his own prior action in determining probable cause for a search warrant. The only other foreign case relied upon by the majority is Stiles v. State, 298 N.E.2d 466 (Ind. App. 1973). This holding is the same as the French case inasmuch as it holds that the mere fact that a judge has ruled upon a showing of probable cause does not necessarily disqualify him from hearing the case. Stiles relied on the earlier Indiana decision of French. However, neither case holds that a judge need not recuse when ruling on the validity of his prior action in determining probable cause for issuance of a warrant. The final case relied upon in the majority opinion is Bates v. State, 210 Ark. 1015, 198 S.W.2d 850 (1947). The question argued by Bates was raised for the first time in a motion for a new trial. The Bates Court stated: “Under the circumstances in this case, such motion comes too late. . . .In the case at bar it was not shown that the trial judge was disqualified, and furthermore the point was not raised in apt time, and was waived.” One thing that is clear from Bates is that the basis argued for reversal on the disqualification issue was some questions and answers between the accused and the judge a few days after the arrest. Obviously such questions were the type and kind usually occurring in habeas corpus or probable cause hearings. However, there is not even a hint in the opinion that there was ever a determination of probable cause for an arrest or search warrant. I agree with every case cited in the majority opinion on the disqualification issue. However, not one of them concerns the issue of a judge ruling on probable cause to issue a search warrant when the same judge issued the warrant. Bliss was and still is the better rule. I would reverse this case for the trial judge’s prejudicial error in failing to recuse. Moreover, probable cause to support the search warrant was not shown. Without the evidence that would have been suppressed after a finding of no probable cause, Holloway could not have been convicted. The “facial” defect in the search warrant referred to by the majority was that it did not authorize a nighttime search. That defect was fatal — not facial. Our rules of criminal procedure require that a search warrant must be served between the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 8:00 p.m., unless it is specifically authorized to be done in the nighttime. Thus, the search warrant in question should not have been served during the night. Such error is equivalent to serving a search warrant that does not contain an address or serving an arrest warrant that leaves off the name of the person to be arrested. I am puzzled by the statement in the majority opinion that the court was given no timely opportunity to rule on an objection to the night time search or an opportunity to rule on the question of the facial defect in the warrant. A timely pre-trial motion to suppress was filed on March 26, 1986, alleging that the scope of the search exceeded that authorized by the warrant. The motion stated in part as follows: [T]he seizure was based on the authority of the search warrant issued as aforesaid, and the scope of the search by which things were seized or discovered, exceeded that authorized by the warrant .... This specifically brought the matter of the unauthorized nighttime search warrant to the trial court’s attention six months before the trial. Searches during the night must be specifically authorized. This one did not authorize such a search. How could the appellant have been more specific? The most prejudicial error in the proceedings below, however, was the failure of the trial court to sever the defendants’ trials. Antagonistic defenses were apparent on the face of these charges and were evident throughout the trial. Holloway had never before been arrested. Severance should always be granted whenever either defendant is unduly jeopardized. McDaniel v. State, 278 Ark. 631, 648 S.W.2d 57 (1983). Practically all of the evidence indicated that the person possessing and dealing drugs was either Delcamp or Francis R. Gallant. There was not the slightest effort to limit the evidence of prior drug sales by Delcamp solely to the question of his guilt. The record does not reveal any evidence linking Holloway to the sale or possession of drugs found in the house. Holloway simply rented a room in which he had used drugs on a couple of occasions in the past. Nothing uncovered in Holloway’s room established possession or sale of cocaine. The majority opinion seems to imply that usable quantities of cocaine were found in Holloway’s room. There was no such evidence. I think this issue is governed by Osborne v. State, 278 Ark. 456, 43 S.W.2d 251 (1982), where we stated: “The problem of joint occupancy arises because of the rule that when joint occupancy is the only evidence the state has, there must be some additional link between the accused and the contraband.” The record showed that Holloway had no control or authority over Delcamp’s house other than the room he rented. The jury had to resort to speculation, obviously influenced by the substantial evidence against Delcamp, to find that Holloway was in possession of the drugs found in Delcamp’s house. The state failed to supply the missing link in a joint occupancy situation. In the interest of justice and fair play this case should be reversed and remanded with directions to grant Holloway a separate trial.