Opinion

Brown v. State

  • 330 Ark. 603
  • 954 S.W.2d 273
  • 1997 Ark. LEXIS 643
Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Filed
Nov 13, 1997
Status
Published
Author
Glaze
On the bench
Glaze, Thornton
Cited by
8 cases
Authority
More cited than 1.5%

find-ing there was a “meaningful hearing” when the evidence was presented through the testimony of police officers

How later courts described this case

  • find-ing there was a “meaningful hearing” when the evidence was presented through the testimony of police officers

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

Tom Glaze, Justice, concurring. In concurring, I write only to mention my understanding of the concern this court expressed in Sanders v. State, 326 Ark. 415 , 932 S.W.2d 315 (1996). There, the court stated that, under the court’s current interpretations of the juvenile code, prosecuting attorneys could file a serious charge against a juvenile in circuit court and do nothing more. (Emphasis added.) That concern involved cases like Walker v. State, 304 Ark. 393 , 803 S.W.2d 502 (1991), where the court held that, in a motion-to-transfer hearing, the criminal information alone was sufficient evidence to determine the seriousness of the juvenile’s offense and the violence employed when denying a transfer. Walker was a 4-3 decision, and since that holding, this court in Sanders has indicated the Walker case should be revisited; also since Walker znd Sanders, see Humphrey v. State, 325 Ark. 753 , 940 S.W.2d 800 (1997), and Justices Brown’s and Imber’s concurring opinion in McClure v. State, 328 Ark. 35 , 942 S.W.2d 243 (1997), reflecting their shared view that the Arkansas Rules of Evidence should be applicable to juvenile-transfer hearings.

While certainly I, too, think the time is ripe for revisiting the Walker decision, the present case is not the one to review the criminal information, as evidence, issue. Here the record, aside from the criminal information, contains more than sufficient evidence to deny Brown’s request for transfer. A hearing was conducted where Brown conceded he was well over eighteen years old — a factor which prevents his being committed to a youth services center, making his chance for rehabilitation within the Division of Youth Services nonexistent. In addition, Officer Derrick Wallace testified without objection to facts showing that Brown, by using a pit bull, committed aggravated assault and forcible robbery when taking a victim’s jacket. In sum, the evidence clearly supported the denial of Brown’s transfer motion. For that reason alone, I join in the majority court’s opinion.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.