Walton v. Arkansas

371 U.S. 28, 83 S. Ct. 9, 9 L. Ed. 2d 9, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 337
CourtSupreme Court of the United States
DecidedOctober 22, 1962
Docket18 M
StatusPublished
Cited by30 cases

This text of 371 U.S. 28 (Walton v. Arkansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of the United States primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Walton v. Arkansas, 371 U.S. 28, 83 S. Ct. 9, 9 L. Ed. 2d 9, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 337 (1962).

Opinion

Per Curiam.

The motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari are granted.

In this capital case the Supreme Court of Arkansas sustained. petitioner’s conviction against the claim, among others, that in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United States his involuntary confession of the crime was introduced in evidence at the trial. Walton v. State, 233 Ark. 999, 350 S. W. 2d 302. Petitioner contends that independently of this claim his conviction was unconstitutional because he was not represented by counsel at the time of his arraignment in the course of which he acknowledged the voluntariness of his confession, such acknowledgment being later used in evidence against him at the trial.

When the Arkansas Supreme Court decided this case it did not have the benefit of this Court’s decision in Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U. S. 52, which was rendered subsequent to the state court’s decision and on the same day that it denied rehearing upon a petition filed prior *29 to the announcement of the Hamilton case. Further, we are unable to conclude from the record filed in this Court either that petitioner had counsel at the time of the arraignment proceedings or, if not, that he was advised of his right to have counsel at such proceedings and that he understandingly and intelligently waived that right.

In these circumstances we conclude that the judgment of the Supreme Court of Arkansas should be vacated and the case remanded to that court for further consideration in light of Hamilton v. Alabama, supra, or for such other appropriate proceedings as may be available under state law for resolution of this constitutional claim.

It is so ordered.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State v. Baltazar Sanchez Urias
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2016
in Re: Thomas Lytle and Ellen Lytle
Court of Appeals of Texas, 2015
People v. Perez
594 P.2d 1 (California Supreme Court, 1979)
Ex Parte Rains
555 S.W.2d 478 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1977)
People v. Holcomb
235 N.W.2d 343 (Michigan Supreme Court, 1975)
United States v. John Carneglia
468 F.2d 1084 (Second Circuit, 1972)
Ex Parte Auten
458 S.W.2d 466 (Court of Criminal Appeals of Texas, 1970)
State v. Chase
249 A.2d 677 (Supreme Court of New Hampshire, 1969)
Madison v. Tahash
249 F. Supp. 600 (D. Minnesota, 1966)
State v. Rees
139 N.W.2d 406 (Supreme Court of Iowa, 1966)
State v. Owens
391 S.W.2d 248 (Supreme Court of Missouri, 1965)
Hoskins v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction
200 A.2d 688 (Court of Appeals of Maryland, 1964)
State v. Morrocco
203 A.2d 161 (Connecticut Appellate Court, 1964)
Freeman v. State
392 P.2d 542 (Idaho Supreme Court, 1964)
Sterling Edward Newcomb v. United States
327 F.2d 649 (Ninth Circuit, 1964)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
371 U.S. 28, 83 S. Ct. 9, 9 L. Ed. 2d 9, 1962 U.S. LEXIS 337, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/walton-v-arkansas-scotus-1962.