Court Opinion

ID: 9770311
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 15:58:13.66896+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T15:37:38.551477
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, dissenting. I disagree with the majority opinion on two points. The first point is that I think the trial judge commented on the evidence and the second is the court improperly imposed limitations upon a convicted party in presenting evidence in mitigation of his sentence. After a witness on behalf of the state testified in a very damaging manner against the appellant, the court stated: “You did a good job, Susan.” It appears from the record that Susan was the only witness who testified that she saw the appellant using a flashlight or a club on the officer’s head during the fight. The statement by the court may have been inadvertently made in one sense but it most certainly was consciously made and the jury was no doubt listening. No other witness received such comment by the court. It seems to me that the likely effect of this comment was to cause the jury to think that the trial judge was persuaded this young lady told the truth while she was on the stand. Actually, the testimony of the other witnesses contradicted what she said in many respects. Any way you measure it, it stills amounts to a comment on the evidence and is prohibited by the Constitution of the State of Arkansas. Art. 7, § 23; Chicago, R.I. & Pac. R.R. Co. v. Adair, 241 Ark. 412, 407 S.W. 2d 930 (1966). The second point I disagree with the majority on concerns the handling of the sentencing phase of appellant’s trial. The majority has now compounded the error which they committed in the case of Hobbs v. State, 273 Ark. 125 (1981). However, Hobbs did not go so far as the present case does. Had the appellant in the present case been allowed to take the stand and testify, as he wanted to, he would have been subject to cross-examination and therefore would not have been violating the rule laid down in Hobbs. The Constitution of the State of Arkansas, Art. 2, § 10, states that an accused shall have the right to be heard by himself and his counsel. In other words, he has a constitutional right to address the jury. This was not necessarily denied in Hobbs v. State, supra, although there the majority did rewrite the legislation enacted by the Arkansas General Assembly to an extent. In the present case they have not only rewritten it, they have destroyed what was left of the statute. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1301 (4) (Repl. 1977) states: ... Evidence as to any mitigating circumstances may be presented by either the state or the defendant regardless of its admissibility under the rules governing admission of evidence in trials of criminal matters; ... For the life of me I cannot see any words or inferences in the foregoing language which would prohibit a convicted person from stating that he only entered the former guilty pleas to keep from receiving more harsh punishment. The appellant was in effect attempting to deny his prior convictions. To disallow a convicted person to attempt to show that his prior convictions were the result of intimidation, coercion, mistreatment, or other unlawful means, would result in grave injustice. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1005 (2) (Repl. 1977) states: If the defendant is found guilty of the felony, the same jury shall sit again and hear evidence of the defendant’s previous felony convictions or previous findings of the defendant’s guilt of felonies. The defendant shall have the right to hear and controvert such evidence and to offer evidence in his support. The majority opinion simply denies him the right to offer evidence in his support. He clearly wanted to testify that he was not guilty of some of the charges and that one of the conviction had probably been set aside. The trial court pulled from the air a rule that unless the appellant had something in writing with him to prove his allegations he could not present it to the jury. This cannot possibly have been the intention of the legislature when enacting this legislation. The state is not even bound by such a strict rule. It is obvious the legislature intended to allow a convicted felon a rather free hand in presenting matters in mitigation. This is true because such presentations were exempted from the Rules of Evidence and no specific restrictions placed thereon except as to relevancy. Obviously, a person should not be allowed to retry his prior felonies; but, on the other hand, it is equally obvious that he should be able to tell the jury the circumstances surrounding the conviction if he so desired. Otherwise, both the constitution and the statutes which authorize him to offer evidence in his behalf are only partially effective. It is extremely unlikely that the appellant would have satisfied the trier of facts, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he was not guilty of the prior felonies. Nevertheless, he has the right to try. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1003 (Repl. 1977). In this case had the jury believed the appellant if he stated that he did not have four convictions, his sentence could have been as low as ten years. On the other hand, his sentence was automatically from fifty years to life. Therefore, I am unwilling to participate in an opinion by this court which denies an appellant his constitutional and statutory rights. Adkisson, C.J., has authorized me to state he joins in that part of the dissent relating to evidence in mitigation.