Court Opinion

ID: 9647277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 13:29:40.29441+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:11:47.617196
License: Public Domain

John A. Fogleman, Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part. Except for the matters set out in this separate opinion, I concur in the majority opinion. I do not agree that any statements made by appellant after his return to the premises until the Miranda warnings were given were inadmissible. We must remember that the trial court found them admissible on motion to suppress. While we make an independent determination of voluntariness based upon the totality of the circumstances, we will not reverse the trial judge on his finding unless it was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Degler v. State, 257 Ark. 388, 517 S.W. 2d 515. It must be remembered that the exclusionary rule applies only to statements resulting from custodial interrogation. Rodney Reeves came back to the premises where he lived while the officers were trying to ascertain the whereabouts of the truck the Fulghams had claimed they saw on the premises. When asked about the truck by Patrolman Phillips he said he had taken it to someone’s house and parked it. When asked for the title to the vehicle, he said that it was in the house. At some point, he ordered the officers off the premises. It may have been as early as his arrival there and it may have been as late as the request for the title. At any rate, his freedom had not been restricted in any way and the inquiry was purely investigatory and proper until the officer refused to let Rodney go into the house without accompanying him, after these statements had been made. Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436, 86 S. Ct. 1602, 16 L. Ed. 2d 694, 10 ALR 3d 974 (1965); Johnson v. State, 252 Ark. 1113, 482 S.W. 2d 600; Patrick v. State, 245 Ark. 923, 436 S.W. 2d 275; Stout v. State, 244 Ark. 676, 426 S.W. 2d 800. En route to the police station, Rodney began to try to explain and said he knew he was in trouble, and officer Pfeifer remarked that he wouldn’t be in any trouble if he told them where the pickup was. Rodney said he wasn’t going to tell them anything and then said he would give SI000 if the man would let him pay for the truck. Pfeifer then warned Rodney of his rights and Rodney then said he knew where the pickup was but wasn’t going to tell anybody. Rodney did testify that Pfeifer asked him during the trip to the police station, “Where in the hell is that truck?”, before advising Rodney of his constitituional rights, and that he answered that it was probably in Oklahoma. According to Pfeifer, he asked Rodney where the pickup truck was after Rodney had been advised of his constitutional rights and Rodney said he knew or felt like it was in Oklahoma but did not know where and wouldn’t tell who took it there. The exclusionary rule does not apply to voluntary statements and statements made without coercion following the proper advice as to constitutional rights. Miranda v. Arizona, supra; U.S. v. Joslyn, 371 F. Supp. 423 (D.C. Az. 1974); Hale v. State, 252 Ark. 1040, 483 S.W. 2d 228; O’Neal v. State, 253 Ark. 574, 478 S.W. 2d 618; Blanton v. State, 249 Ark. 181, 458 S.W. 2d 373. Certainly we cannot say that the finding of the trial judge was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence, on statements made before his freedom was restricted and statements made after the warnings were given. Ozorco v. Texas, 394 U.S. 324, 89 S. Ct. 1095, 22 L. Ed. 2d 311 (1969), cited by the majority, does not require the exclusion of these statements. The statements there all resulted from interrogation while the accused was in custody and he had not been warned of his constitutional rights. They were elicited by four police officers who entered the accused’s bedroom in a boardinghouse at 4:00 a.m. One of these officers testified that the accused was not free to leave from the time they entered his bedroom. That is a decidedly different situation. I also cannot agree that a docket sheet is not admissible in evidence to show a previous conviction. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2330 (Repl. 1964) does not purport to make the certified copy of a former conviction and judgment the exclusive method of proof. Until notations on a docket sheet are controverted they are prima facie evidence. Prout v. State, 256 Ark. 723, 510 S.W. 2d 291; Smith v. Wallis-McKinney Coal Co., 140 Ark. 218, 215 S.W. 385; Visart v. Bush, 46 Ark. 153. I would not, however, disagree with the holding that it was not admissible in this case. There was no conviction and judgment for imprisonment in the penitentiary in this instance. Appellant was put on statutory probation. This could not come within the terms of Ark. Stat. Ann. § 43-2330. Furthermore, we have held that there is not a conviction until there is a commitment to prison. State Medical Board v. Rodgers, 190 Ark. 266, 79 S.W. 2d 83; Tucker v. State, 248 Ark. 979, 455 S.W. 2d 888; Sutherland v. Arkansas Department of Insurance, 250 Ark. 903, 467 S.W. 2d 724. The probation may well account for the fact that no judgment was ever entered of record in the case. As to all other matters, I fully concur. I am authorized to state that Mr. Justice Jones joins in this opinion.