Court Opinion

ID: 9675643
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 05:00:17.319481+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:36.301343
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, concurring. I concur in all of the majority opinion except those portions relating to the photograph identification of the appellant and the rules suggested for receiving evidence in the aggravation and mitigation stage of the trial. The first point of disagreement with the majority is in allowing the photograph identification of the appellant. The photograph in question is of three men: a young black man wearing a beard and mustache who appears to be in his mid-20’s, a mustached middle-aged black man who appears to be in his late 40s or early 50s, and a clean-shaven older man in his 60s who has white hair and a light complexion. Keep in mind the appellant is 26 years of age. I think the majority could have avoided declaring this photograph as not being too suggestive for the reason that it was shown to a party in an attempt to identify the person who had cashed a check at the bank. The appellant had not been charged and was not in custody nor were the identifying witnesses victims of a crime. However, the way the matter is written in the opinion it would appear that we would allow such prejudicial and suggestive identification if it were a case of the victim identifying the accused after he was in custody. I do not think the opinion should go that far, even though this error in not prejudicial. The second point of my disagreement with the majority opinion is the interpretation placed on Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1301 (4) (Repl. 1977). The statute clearly states that for the purpose of determining the sentence evidence may be presented to the jury as to any matters relating to aggravating circumstances ... or any mitigating circumstances. The statute further states that such evidence may be presented by either party regardless of its admissibility under rules governing admission of evidence in trials of criminal matters. The statute clearly distinguishes the difference in matters presented in mitigation from those presented in aggravation. The statute states: . . . the admissibility of evidence relevant to the aggravating circumstances set forth in section 1303 (§ 41-1303) shall be governed by the rules governing the admission of evidence in such trials. ... There simply is no regulating criteria relating to mitigation evidence other than it be relevant. I have been unable to find any history of this statute; therefore, we are left with the interpretation of the plain meaning of the words used in this statute. It seems most logical that the legislature intended to allow the convicted party a last opportunity to plead for his life. After all, only two sentences are possible at this stage of the proceedings. The accused may be sentenced to die by electrocution or may be sentenced to serve life imprisonment without parole in the Department of Correction’s institutions. This seems to me to be the reason the legislature specifically stated that an accused could present any mitigating circumstance regardless of its admissibility under the rules of evidence. I think the court is wrong in giving it the interpretation set out in the majority opinion because the only basis for such interpretation is the personal feeling of the individual members of the court. I realize a convicted person should not be turned loose at this point to present any and everything which might come to his mind. There must be an end to the trial at some time. However, since the person’s life is at stake, no doubt the legislature intended to allow him to present testimony, affidavits, statements, pictures, evidence of character and any other matter which has a relation to the offense for which he was convicted. I particularly dislike that portion of the majority opinion which interprets this rule to allow the state an opportunity to cross-examine unless there were compelling and valid reasons for not allowing it. This requirement is simply pulled from the air and is contrary to the intent of the statute.