Smith v. State

Frank Holt, Justice.

Appellants were convicted by a jury of burglary and grand larceny. Through their present court appointed counsel, appellants persuasively argue for reversal of the judgments that the state failed to prove the voluntariness of their confessions and did not overcome the legal presumption that the confessions were involuntary because the state failed to call material witnesses or explain their absence. We must agree with this contention which is one of first impression in our state.

In Mitchell v. Bishop, Supt., 248 Ark. 427, 452 S.W. 2d 340 (1970), we said:

“Of course, under…