Davis v. State

7 Citing cases

  1. Ellis v. State

    791 S.W.2d 370 (Ark. 1990)   Cited 9 times
    In Ellis v. State, 302 Ark. 597, 791 S.W.2d 370 (1990), our supreme court again stated, "We have held many times that an illegal arrest does not necessarily invalidate a conviction" and cited Davis v. State, 296 Ark. 524, 758 S.W.2d 706 (1988); O'Riordan v. State, 281 Ark. 424, 665 S.W.2d 255 (1984); and Singleton v. State, 256 Ark. 756, 510 S.W.2d 283 (1974).

    We have held many times that an illegal arrest does not necessarily invalidate a conviction. Davis v. State, 296 Ark. 524, 758 S.W.2d 706 (1988); O'Riordan v. State, 281 Ark. 424, 665 S.W.2d 255 (1984); Singleton v. State, 256 Ark. 756, 510 S.W.2d 283 (1974). In Grable v. State, 298 Ark. 489, 769 S.W.2d 9 (1989), we mentioned the invalidity of the arrest due to the failure of the arresting officer to comply with the qualifications statute.

  2. Dilday v. State

    778 S.W.2d 618 (Ark. 1989)   Cited 15 times
    In Dilday v. State, 300 Ark. 249, 778 S.W.2d 618 (1989), we held that deputies employed by "planned communities" have the authority to arrest.

    This case is easily distinguishable from Brewer, where we held a DWI conviction invalid because the only charge against the defendant was by an auxiliary officer who was not acting in compliance with Ark. Code Ann. 12-9-100 et seq. (1987), supra, the minimum standards act. However, we recognized in Davis v. State, 296 Ark. 524, 758 S.W.2d 706 (1988), that under the general rule, an illegal arrest won't void a valid conviction: "It goes almost without saying that a defendant, after having been fairly tried in a court of competent jurisdiction and found guilty . . . is not entitled to be set free on the basis of some flaw in the manner of his arrest," citing from Singleton v. State, 256 Ark. 756, 510 S.W.2d 283 (1974). We then noted that the holding in Brewer was a limited exception to that rule which applied when a non-qualified officer issued the only charges in the case, since pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 12-9-108(a) (1987), "any action" taken by such officer "shall be held as invalid."

  3. Mitchell v. State

    769 S.W.2d 18 (Ark. 1989)   Cited 17 times
    In State v. Mitchell (May 2, 1989), Franklin App. No. 88AP-695, unreported, 1989 WL 47083, this court held that the trial court erred in refusing the defendant's requested jury instructions on alibi under similar circumstances.

    2. OFFICERS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES — OFFICER TRAINING AND STANDARDS — QUALIFICATIONS — NO SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE BY THE CITY. — Where the city took no action to obtain the required psychological report before hiring the officer involved here and only met this minimum standard or requirement three months after the appellant's arrest, or twenty-one months after the officer was employed, there was no substantial compliance with the statutory law or Commission regulations. 3. CRIMINAL LAW — STATE MUST ESTABLISH A RECORD THAT WILL SUPPORT ITS CASE ON APPEAL. — It is the state's obligation to prove its charges against a defendant and, in doing so, establish a record that will support its case on appeal; to the extent that the holdings in Davis v. State, 296 Ark. 524, 758 S.W.2d 706 (1988) and Helms v. State, 297 Ark. 44, 759 S.W.2d 546 (1988) place that burden on the appellant, they are reversed. 4. CRIMINAL LAW — STATE FAILED TO ESTABLISH RECORD TO SUPPORT CASE ON APPEAL. — Where there was nothing to support the idea that the appellant was charged with any instrument other than the citation issued by the non-qualified officer and no evidence upon which to base appellant's conviction except that which resulted from the officer's illegal arrest of the appellant, the appellant's conviction was based solely on the non-qualified officer's citation and the conviction must be reversed and the cause dismissed. Appeal from White Circuit Court; Cecil Tedder, Judge; reversed and dismissed.

  4. Grable v. State

    298 Ark. 489 (Ark. 1989)   Cited 19 times
    In Grable v. State, 298 Ark. 489, 769 S.W.2d 9 (1989), we mentioned the invalidity of the arrest due to the failure of the arresting officer to comply with the qualifications statute.

    nforcement Standards and Training shall not take any official action as a police officer, and any action taken shall be held as invalid, with certain exceptions for disaster or emergency situations and the issuing of parking violation citations. 4. OFFICERS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES — MINIMUM STANDARDS MUST BE COMPLETED BEFORE EMPLOYMENT. — Merely initiating the fingerprint search is insufficient compliance with the requirement for a fingerprint check because the regulation makes it clear that the minimum standards must be "completed" before employment. 5. OFFICERS PUBLIC EMPLOYEES — STRICT COMPLIANCE WITH QUALIFICATIONS AND STANDARDS IS REQUIRED — SUBSTANTIAL COMPLIANCE IS NOT ENOUGH. — Strict compliance with the standards and qualifications of police officers is required by the emphatic language of Ark. Code Ann. 12-9-108(a); substantial compliance with those requirements is insufficient. 6. CRIMINAL LAW — PROOF THAT INVALID CHARGE WAS ONLY CHARGE AGAINST APPELLANT — CASES OVERRULED. — Davis v. State, 296 Ark. 524, 758 S.W.2d 706 (1988), and Helms v. State, 297 Ark. 44, 759 S.W.2d 546 (1988), were both overruled to the extent that they implied or said it was the duty of the defendant or appellant to present evidence to the trial court that there was no charge against him other than the one contended to be invalid. 7. CRIMINAL LAW — BURDEN ON STATE TO PROVE CHARGES, BURDEN NOT ON APPELLANT TO PROVE THERE WERE NO OTHER CHARGES. — Just as the defendant has no duty to establish any fact proving his innocence, he has no duty to prove the negative proposition that there are no charges against him other than the one before the court of which he complains; it is the duty of the state to give notice of the offense charged in the charges levied against the defendant. Appeal from White Circuit Court; Cecil Tedder, Judge; reversed and dismissed.

  5. Whitehead v. State

    873 S.W.2d 800 (Ark. 1994)   Cited 6 times
    In Whitehead, this court held that the circuit court did not have jurisdiction to rule on a motion to transfer a matter to juvenile court because no information or indictment had been filed charging the defendant with an offense.

    In addition, it is fundamental, established law that a party cannot be found guilty of a crime with which he or she was never charged. Davis v. State, 296 Ark. 524, 758 S.W.2d 706 (1988); Brewer v. State, 286 Ark. 1, 688 S.W.2d 736 (1985). Until a proper charging instrument (information or indictment) is filed by the state in this matter, the circuit court simply had no authority to proceed, much less rule on a transfer motion under 9-27-318.

  6. Helms v. State

    297 Ark. 44 (Ark. 1988)   Cited 2 times
    In Helms v. State, 297 Ark. 44, 759 S.W.2d 546 (1988), we were presented again with an invalid charge and we again declined to reverse because, in part, "the appellant failed to show that the arresting officer's citation was the only formal charge [emphasis supplied]..."

    Finally, there was no showing that appellant's arrest was dependent solely on the citation issued by the arresting officer. Recently in Davis v. State, 296 Ark. 524, 758 S.W.2d 706 (1988), we reviewed the law affecting the legality of an arrest where the qualifications of the arresting officer were challenged on the basis of Ark. Code Ann. 12-9-108(a) (1987). We said if the officer was not qualified it was as if no charge were ever filed, Brewer v. State, 286 Ark. 1, 688 S.W.2d 736 (1985) and "a party cannot be guilty of a crime with which he was never charged."

  7. State v. Fore

    876 S.W.2d 278 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994)

    The Arkansas Supreme Court agreed and cited State v. Block, supra. In Ellis v. State, 302 Ark. 597, 791 S.W.2d 370 (1990), our supreme court again stated, "We have held many times that an illegal arrest does not necessarily invalidate a conviction" and cited Davis v. State, 296 Ark. 524, 758 S.W.2d 706 (1988); O'Riordan v. State, 281 Ark. 424, 665 S.W.2d 255 (1984); and Singleton v. State, 256 Ark. 756, 510 S.W.2d 283 (1974). The Arkansas Court of Appeals has made the same holding.