Court Opinion

ID: 9761016
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 01:28:25.821336+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:29:19.679997
License: Public Domain

David Newbern, Justice, dissenting. The court’s opinion is not quite convincing. Murder in the course of committing a felony is one act. It makes sense to say evidence of death by criminal means satisfies the corpus delicti requirement where the charge may be felony murder. Theft and theft by receiving are two separate acts. The receiving may occur miles from and weeks after the theft. A showing that the theft occurred has no relationship to a showing that theft by receiving occurred. The gravamen of the latter offense is knowledge that the goods were stolen, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-106 (1987); the corpus delicti, therefore, should be a showing that the goods were received with such knowledge rather than that the owner suffered an unlawful taking. The court’s opinion cites only one case directly on point, State v. Fuller, 446 So.2d 799 (La. App. 1984). There, a Louisiana court of appeals referred to the appellant’s argument as “ingenious.” The court was stonewalling to avoid the frustration we must sometimes endure in order to follow the law. I respectfully dissent. Dudley, J., joins in this dissent.