Legal Opinion · Concurrence

Chenowith v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Decided October 27, 1969No. 5432Published

1ConcurrenceJohn A. Fogleman, Justice

I concur because I cannot find where the trial judge ever made any ruling that the confessions in the affidavits of Chenowith were voluntary. I have the same view in this case as that expressed in my concurring opinion in Estep v. State, 244 Ark. 843, 427 S. W. 2d 535. Here, as there, the record was totally devoid of any offer of proof which might be anticipated in a hearing on the question of voluntariness of the confession.

This is a case in which it might easily be said that no prejudice resulted from a determination by the trial judge in the presence of the jury, in the absence of any…

2Cases cited1 opinion

  1. Estep v. StateSupreme Court of Arkansas · 1968

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API