AR: Defective arrest warrant not a bar to prosecution

On a state’s appeal from dismissal of charges against City Council members because of a defective arrest warrant, a defective warrant does not deprive the court of jurisdiction to try the defendant. A defective warrant might require suppressing a statement obtained under the defective arrest warrant, but that was not an issue here. State v. Richardson, CR07-610 (Ark. March 13, 2008):

An illegal arrest, without more, has never been viewed as either a bar to subsequent prosecution or an absolute argument against a valid conviction. Biggers v. State, 317 Ark. 414, 878 S.W.2d 717 (1994) (citing United States v. Crews, 445 U.S. 463 (1980)); see also Wallace v. State, 314 Ark. 247, 862 S.W.2d 235 (1993). While an invalid arrest may call for the suppression of a confession or other evidence, it does not entitle a defendant to be discharged from responsibility for the offense. Biggers, supra; Wallace, supra; O’Riordan v. State, 281 Ark. 424, 665 S.W.2d 255 (1984). “The court’s jurisdiction to try the accused does not depend upon the validity of the arrest.” Singleton v. State, 256 Ark. 756, 757, 510 S.W.2d 283, 284 (1974).

There were multiple other cases, all involving city council members, reversed citing back to Richardson decided the same day, one by each member of the court: Holden, Ashwood, Joshaway, Weaver, and Lee.

Comment: Why they weren’t decided as one case seems pointless, unless they are building statistics for the AOC.

This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

Comments are closed.