Court Opinion

ID: 9681041
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 07:42:51.993499+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:31.919427
License: Public Domain

Steele Hays, Justice, dissenting. I respectfully disagree with the view that this confession was not induced in the hope of gaining leniency. Detective Harvey’s testimony provides all the support necessary: “Knowing Danny the way I did, I told him that I didn’t think it would be hard on him if he did make a statement. Yes, sir, I did make that promise to him. I told him that considering his record there might be a possibility [of probation].” (My emphasis.) While Detective Harvey’s testimony seems forthright enough, we can be sure he offered no less than he admits — which is surely enough to render this confession as coerced, not by intimidation but by enticement. Either way, the result is the same. See Tatum v. State, 266 Ark. 506, 585 S.W. 2d 957 (1979). The corollary illustrates the wisdom of the rule: the officer’s promised leniency, and appellant’s misplaced hopes of leniency, were answered with a thirty-five year prison sentence for what can be aptly characterized as a strong-arm extortion of $80.00 by a drunken appellant. Hickman and Purtle, JJ., join.