Court Opinion

ID: 9775702
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 19:07:38.000669+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:30.476410
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, concurring. It is the duty of the state to make specific allegations in the information or amended information. In this case we have had to guess at the underlying felony. The trial court made a logical conclusion in deciding that all three felonies at issue supported the capital murder charge. If we are to strictly construe criminal statutes we must conclude that the trial judge was right. Our guess as to the underlying felony is no better than his, but we are right because there are more of us. All four of the charges concerning the criminal acts against Dorothy Mullen grew out of one episode, and all four of the charges concerning the criminal acts against Axie Criner grew out of one episode. Perhaps the state intended to prove that all of the other felonies were supporting the capital felony murder charge and the attempted capital murder charge. See, e.g., Hill v. State, 275 Ark. 71, 628 S.W.2d 285 (1982). However, the prosecution and the court should not strive to multiply the crime and sentence beyond the facts. After all, the appellant cannot be expected to serve more than one life sentence. The majority captions the decision as a reversal, but it seems to me to be more of an affirmance.