Court Opinion

ID: 9672175
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 03:50:16.320153+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:14.730414
License: Public Domain

John A. Fogleman, Justice, dissenting. While I agree that no single act treated in the majority opinion would have been sufficient corroboration of the accomplice Yanderboom, I think that when all acts of the appellants are considered together a jury question was presented. Corroboration may be circumstantial as well as direct. Mullen v. State, 193 Ark. 648, 102 S. W. 2d 82. Circumstances here are: Appellants spent the- night, preceding that on which the crimes were committed, with the accomplice in a motel in Fayetteville into which one of them registered under a fictitious name and address. Vanderboom’s home was only a short distance away in Springdale. The appellants and Yanderboom were together in Si-loam Springs at least until 6:00 p.m. on the night the crimes were committed. A billfold carrying the identification of Larry Pitts was in the possession of Vanderboom when he was arrested. Articles which would have tended to incriminate appellants, that is, a billfold and clothing said by Vanderboom to be that of Terry Pitts, had disappeared from the pickup truck between the time Vanderboom was arrested and the time when the arresting officer returned. A pair of bolt cutters belonging to Larry Pitts had also disappeared from a horse trailer attached to the pickup truck. There were horse hoofprints around the truck that had not been' there when the officer was first at the scene. The pickup truck and horse trailer belonged to appellants. The truck keys were in Vanderboom’s possession. It seems to me that all of these circumstances, taken together, constituted sufficient evidence to make a jury question as to the sufficiency of the corroboration. See McClure v. State, 214 Ark. 159, 215 S. W. 2d 524. Presence of the accused in the proximity of the crime, opportunity, association with persons involved in such a way as to suggest joint participation, possession of instruments probably used to commit the offense are all relevant facts in determining whether statements of an accomplice are sufficiently corroborated. Moore v. State, 30 Ala. App. 304, 5 So. 2d 644 (1941); Cawley v. State, 166 Tex. Crim. 37, 310 S. W. 2d 340 (1957); State v. Mathiasen, 267 Minn. 393, 127 N. W. 2d 534 (1964). I would affirm the judgment. Harris, C. J., and Jones, J., join in this dissent.