Court Opinion

ID: 9777277
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 20:05:57.442521+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:32:51.544777
License: Public Domain

Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice, dissenting. The majority correctly state the issue, which is whether a transcript of testimony taken at a preliminary hearing may be used as evidence in a circuit court criminal trial where a witness is unavailable. I dissent from the majority decision. The appellants appeared at plea and arraignment in Pulaski County Circuit Court on May 29, 1979, and after they waived their right to trial by jury, a court trial was set for October 25, 1979. The subpoena for Cherylinda Ford (absent witness) was not issued until ten days before the trial, a delay of over four and one-half months from the arraignment date. On the day of trial, Cherylinda Ford was reported to be living in Pasadena, California. I The majority’s holding that it is unnecessary to reach the issue of the “unavailability” of the witness ignores Satterfield v. State, 248 Ark. 395, 451 S.W. 2d 730 (1970) in which this court held that the prosecution must make a “good-faith effort” to obtain a witness at trial before it can claim the “unavailability” exception to the confrontation requirement. This is also the rule recognized by the United States Supreme Court. They said that state evidentiary rules can fall within this exception if two tests are met. First, the witness must be “unavailable,” and second, the testimony must be found to be reliable. A witness is not unavailable unless the State has made a good-faith effort to obtain the witness’s presence at the trial. Barber v. Page, 390 U.S. 719 (1978). Also see Dutton v. Evans, 400 U.S. 74 (1970);Mattox v. U.S., 156 U.S. 237 (1895). Since the trial court held that the witness in this case was unavailable, the only remaining issue under the confrontation clause of the Arkansas and United States Constitutions is whether the testimony given at the preliminary hearing is reliable. The United States Supreme Court considered the issue of reliability in California v. Green, 399 U.S. 149 (1970) and found that testimony taken at a preliminary hearing was admissible. The reasons given for admission were: The circumstances closely approximated those that surround a typical trial; the witness was under oath; the defendant was represented by counsel and had every opportunity to cross-examine the witness; and, the trial was before a judicial tribunal equipped to provide a judicial record. All of the circumstances present in Green are present here and, therefore, this case should be affirmed. II I would also take exception with the majority holding that the transcript, to be admissible, must pass only the test as to whether a similar motive exists. In all cases the transcript, of course, must meet the reliability test imposed by the United States Constitution. However, in regard to “a similar motive,” Rule 804 (b)(1) provides: “the party against whom the testimony is now offered [must have] ... had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony. ...” The test as stated in the majority opinion should consider both of the elements of Rule 804(b)(1); instead, however, it de-emphasizes the element of “opportunity” for cross-examination which has been emphasized in prior cases. See Walls v. State, 194 Ark. 578, 109 S.W. 2d 143(1937);Satterfieldv. State, 248 Ark. 395, 451 S.W. 2d 730 (1970);Pointer v. Texas, 380 U.S. 400 (1965). Although the Colorado case, apparently favored by the majority, places emphasis on the “motive” for cross-examination, both opportunity and similar motive are factors to be considered in determining whether former testimony is admissible as an exception to the hearsay rule under Rule 804. Also, the majority state that the “motive of the witness was important because one of these defendants was apparently her former boyfriend.” This statement regarding the motive of the witness expands the scope of Rule 804 which only requires the party against whom the testimony is offered to have had an opportunity and similar motive to develop the testimony. I don’t think we should consider the motive of a mere witness. It certainly is not required by Rule 804.