Court Opinion

ID: 9647410
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:35:37.781499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:02:36.490009
License: Public Domain

Tom Glaze, Justice, dissenting. In my view, the majority opinion is wrong. The record clearly reflects that Clay, himself, initially delayed his arraignment by escaping from jail. And within twenty-four hours after he was found and rearrested, Clay admitted that he had shot Glynda Wallace, and had given and shown the authorities enough evidence needed to convict him of capital murder. In other words, even if Clay had been arraigned within a forty-eight hour period, he had already knowingly and voluntarily given police all the probable cause they needed not only to arrest and charge him but to convict him, as well. Nonetheless, the majority court needlessly reverses this case based upon a confession which does no more than confirm the evidence the police already had. From the state’s view, the only purpose Clay’s final confession served was his concession that no one had assisted him in killing Glynda Wallace. First, I note the trial court’s following findings when it ruled that all of Clay’s statements were admissible: [T]his was not a case of a continuous tag team interviewing through the day and night until finally he broke and made an admission. I assume the end results there must be something inculpatory here, I assume. But the defendant was not in any way abused, mistreated, no force or coercion, threats or intimidation either upon the defendant or members of his family was used in these interviews even though they were over several . . . days were not unduly prolonged or long in nature. The record thoroughly supports the trial court’s findings. The chronology of events follows: Tues., Aug. 14, 1990 - The victim, Glynda Wallace, was found dead. Thurs., Aug. 23, 1990, at 1:10 p.m. - Clay was interviewed and released. Thurs., Aug. 23, 1990, at 7:20 p.m. - Clay was arrested for theft by receiving of victim’s car. Clay gave statement his Uncle Andrew sold him Glynda’s car and Andrew purportedly said that Robert Turner had title. Fri., Aug. 24, 1990 - Clay escapes from jail. Sat., Aug. 25, 1990 - Clay is found, rearrested and gives statement at 3:10 p.m., implicating a Robert Turner who Clay said stole Glynda’s car and shot her. He acknowledged his presence at crime scene. Sun., Aug. 26, 1990, at 5:10 p.m. - State charged Clay with capital murder after he gave statement admitting he had asked Glynda Wallace for a ride, she had refused, so Clay pulled a gun; she gave him a ride and when he departed the car, his gun went off. He mentioned Robert Turner appeared, came to the car and kicked Wallace down gravel road. He said he did not know who burned Glynda’s car. Mon., Aug. 27, 1990 - Clay takes authorities to site where car had been burned and purse found. Tues., Aug. 28, 1990, at 10:20 a.m. - Clay gives statement relating that he shot Glynda Wallace and no one else was involved. He stated where he took Glynda’s car to burn it and where he threw away his gun. From the foregoing events, it is clear Clay initially caused the delay in his arraignment. His escape from jail prevented the state from having him arraigned until after his recapture on Saturday, August 25, 1990. On this date, he gave a second voluntary, but different, account bearing on his involvement with Glynda’s vehicle and death. The next day, Sunday, he gave a third account, but this time he admitted he shot Glynda Wallace. A fair reading of the record shows that Clay’s August 26th or 28th statements (and earlier statements) were not causally related to any delay in his arraignment or that the police actions contributed to that delay. In Duncan v. State, 291 Ark. 521, 726 S.W.2d 653 (1987), we adopted the rule that a defendant’s confession should not automatically be excluded from evidence unless that confession was related to the delay. Specifically, the Duncan court adopted a three-part test that (1) the delay must be unnecessary, (2) the evidence must be prejudicial, and (3) the evidence must be reasonably related to the delay. (My emphasis). In Duncan, this court held a causal connection existed because the defendant initially gave only exculpatory statements, but after police held him three and a half days in incommunicado detention, he incriminated himself. Also, Duncan was mildly retarded, had asked authorities if they appointed lawyers to which the officers made no response, and no evidence showed Duncan had signed a waiver of rights form. This case is a far cry from Duncan. From the beginning, it is undisputed that ample proof existed tying Clay to the theft by receiving of Glynda Wallace’s car; but he escaped, thereby preventing any arraignment on Friday — the day after his arrest for theft. When Clay was rearrested on Saturday, he immediately implicated Robert Turner as the one who shot Glynda, but also implicated himself, as well, by acknowledging his presence at the crime. By Sunday, the next day, Clay admitted that he had seen Glynda, pulled a gun on her and subsequently shot her. From the time Clay was rearrested and in custody on Saturday, he was signing rights forms and telling stories that implicated himself, in varying degrees, with Glynda’s murder. Unlike in Duncan, the record here shows Clay’s escape and numerous voluntary statements served to show his involvement and guilt in Glynda’s murder. Clay’s final statement, given on Tuesday, August 28th, merely confirmed his earlier Sunday statement by conceding his having shot Glynda. His final August 28th statement merely disclosed he acted alone — a fact that the police had already determined by other independent investigation. Today, the majority opinion effectively adopts the automatic rule that, if a defendant is not arraigned within forty-eight hours from his arrest, no statements given by the defendant during that period can be admitted at trial. That is not Arkansas law. Nor is it required under the Supreme Court decision in County of Riverside v. McLaughlin, 500 U.S. 44 (1991), which our court followed in Duncan. Again, even if Clay had been arraigned within forty-eight hours after his rearrest (which would have expired sometime Monday, August 27th), Clay had already voluntarily given authorities probable cause, and more, to hold, charge and convict him of Glynda’s murder. In short, Clay’s August 28th confession was not related to the short delay in his arraignment. His confession, instead, naturally evolved from his own actions and prior statements. At the least, even if it is said that Clay’s confession resulted from the brief delay in Clay’s arraignment, the trial court’s admission of the August 28th confession was harmless in view of the overwhelming evidence of his guilt. This court should uphold the trial court’s ruling that admitted all of Clay’s statements into evidence, and affirm Clay’s murder conviction. Hays and Corbin, JJ., join this dissent.