Court Opinion

ID: 9648654
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 14:31:35.75406+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:07:45.318311
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. This court’s plurality decision in George v. State, 306 Ark. 360, 813 S.W.2d 792 (1991) (George I), which was supplemented by opinion in George v. State, 307 Ark. 374-A, 818 S.W.2d 951 (1991) (George II), was our first occasion to consider the recent case of Idaho v. Wright, — U.S--, 110 S.Ct. 3139 (1990). In George I, the majority court held that, under Wright, our A.R.E. Rule 803(25) ran afoul of the Confrontation Clause. The majority opinion said that the utilization of the factors listed in Rule 803(25) was impermissible in a trial court’s determination of the trustworthiness and admissibility of an unavailable victim’s hearsay statement. In addition, the opinion stated Rule 803(25) was constitutionally flawed because it did not include the factors the Court in Wright considered relevant in determining such trustworthiness issue, viz., (1) spontaneity and consistent repetition of the child’s statement, (2) mental state of the declarant, (3) use of terminology unexpected of a child of similar age and (4) lack of motive to fabricate. In George II, the court attempted to retreat somewhat from its original position that all factors or criteria in Rule 803(25) were invalid and instead limited the Rule’s invalidation only to one of the thirteen factors listed under it — 803(25)(A)1(/). In limiting its decision, the George II court concluded the other twelve factors in Rule 803(25) were not invalid and one of those, Rule 803(25)(m), allowed this court to utilize the factors named in Wright even though the trial court in George had not specifically mentioned or applied those factors. In a concurring opinion in George II, I joined the majority, but I added my disagreement with the Wright rationale and decision. I had hoped that the Wright case would be promptly overturned, but it has not been. While I remain in strong disagreement with that decision, the decision is, nevertheless, binding, and I fear our opinions in George have done little to give guidelines to our trial courts which must deal with the difficult issues involving Rule 803(25) in the aftermath of the Wright holding. Perhaps, we have come closer to clarifying the court’s George decisions today. In George I, we held all of the criteria in Rule 803(25) violated the Confrontation Clause. I now believe the Wright case required that holding, and the court’s attempt to salvage most of the Rule in George II was in error. Accordingly, I join the majority here in reversing the present case because the trial court followed Rule 803(25) when allowing the child’s hearsay statements into evidence. Although the child’s statements to her mother and the nurse may be found trustworthy and admissible as excited utterances and medical treatment hearsay exceptions, her statements to the police officer fail to fall within any firmly-rooted hearsay exception or factor set out in the Wright decision. The dissenting opinion suggests harmless error exists in the present case because the evidence of appellant’s guilt is overwhelming. While I certainly agree sufficient evidence exists to support appellant’s conviction, I cannot say that the police officer’s testimony, relating the child’s only statement that appellant penetrated her, was not prejudicial. I disagree with the five members of this court who adopt a new Rule 803(25) without submitting the rule to one of this court’s committees or to the bar for comments. The court’s action will no doubt continue to “muddy the waters” on this very important subject. I would have no objection to this court adopting an interim rule like Act 66 of 1992, which the General Assembly narrowly drafted to correct the child hearsay problems raised in Idaho v. Wright, and our George decisions. Instead, this court chooses to adopt a more expansive rule without any input. The members of the bench and bar must now decide whether Act 66 or the new Rule 803(25) is controlling. By their action, this court’s majority members apparently believe Act 66 is not constitutionally sound. That being true, jurists should have this thought in mind regarding cases already tried, and now being tried, since Act 66’s passage. Act 66 took effect on March 20, 1992. For my part, I would adopt a new Rule 803(25) like the one provided in Act 66. In doing so, I would use the same four criteria approved by the Wright court and set out in Act 66. As I have stated before, I am of the view that the General Assembly should provide for the court’s evidentiary rules. Sypult v. State, 304 Ark. 5, 14, 800 S.W.2d 402, 408 (1990) (Glaze, J., dissenting); see also M. Gitelman and J. Watkins, No Requiem for Ricarte: Separation of Powers, the Rules of Evidence, and the Rules of Civil Procedure, (1990), 1991 Ark. L. Notes 27. However, in order to give the bench and bar guidance in this area of law, I would agree to promulgate a new Rule 803(25) comparable to the General Assembly’s Act 66. This court could then later sort out whether Act 66 or the new Rule 803(25) is prevailing law by revisiting the issue, if it chooses, as to whether the court or the General Assembly has the power to enact rules of evidence. As matters stand with this court’s action today, we will live with the reign of confusion still longer. Hays, J., joins this concurrence.