Court Opinion

ID: 9684027
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 13:45:10.521096+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:52.460311
License: Public Domain

John I. Purtle, Justice, concurring. Were I to allow my emotions to control my judgment I would dissent from the majority view in this capital felony case. However, after reviewing the record, I am convinced the majority properly state the law as we have treated it in the past. The law has not changed since we stated in Bly v. State, 263 Ark. 138, 562 S.W. 2d 605 (1978). It is our duty in a capital felony case to examine the entire record for not only errors raised on appeal but also those that may be found in the record. The record clearly reveals appellant raised the issue of competency to stand trial. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-606 (Repl. 1977) states: If the defendant’s fitness to proceed becomes an issue, it shall be determined by the court. If neither party contests the finding of the report filed pursuant to section 605 (§ 41-605), the court may make the determination on the basis of the report. If the finding is contested, the court shall hold a hearing on the issue. The above statute placed the duty upon the trial court to make the decision of whether the appellant was competent to stand trial. The trial court did not make that determination. It is our duty to return the case to the trial court for a new trial. We are not free to decide any case in a manner which we personally feel expedites justice unless the accused has been afforded due process of law and has received equal treatment. Such consideration is basic to our form of government and required by the Constitution of the State of Arkansas and the Constitution of the United States.