*1 an agreement parties the court is allowed to write whereby to make private confer the courts power “would upon within judicial province a agreements, certainly matter in our law.” traditionally Rector-Phillips- it has been understood Vroman, v. supra. Morse would a list is not
I
hold that
customer
under
protected
Statute
as a written document.
reasonable effort
except
only
a list not in
is to
an
writing
can make
enter
employer
protect
exists,
agreement
If such an
agreement
employee.
may
secret,
to the
raise the memorized customer list
level of trade
but
it should be
agreement
to the extent
between
protected
First,
for two reasons.
in no
parties
event should the informa
tion
protected
be
as a trade secret in
perpetuity because
would violate the
public
same
restraint of trade we
policy
have declared
noncompetition
to control
agreements. Hyde C
Co.,
218,
M
Vending
(1986);
Tracy Lamar DANIELS v. STATE of Arkansas
CR 91-249
Supreme Court Arkansas Opinion delivered January *2 Adams, Hamner, E. Wallace & Dale by: appellant. Gen., Bryant, Vining, Winston Att’y Asst. by: Att’y Jeff Gen., for appellee. Glaze, 18,1990, Tracy Tom On July appellant, Justice. Daniels, was of of property convicted the offense of theft a sentenced to a of sentence for of suspended period imposition with written rules of conditioned years, upon compliance conduct, with Act of to Daniels contends on apply. that the evidence is insufficient to sustain his conviction. appeal disagree, We affirm. therefore 27, 1989, Ray
On November Daniels and co-defendants charged Gene Crutchfield and Rhonda Hill were Lynn by felony of Crutchfield information with the crime theft of property. waived Daniels and Hill both their subsequently pleaded guilty; trial tried the court on right July to and were before jury 1990. we considering arguments,
Before mention the were tried cases and Hill’s the appellant’s in which manner objections evidentiary certain bearing on had some because it July in court on appeared and Hill When appellant made. hindering guilty enter a plea attempted initially appellant its through court went After the or prosecution. apprehension accepting plea, required litany questions to be tried mind, agreed his plea withdrew changed then interposed time as Hill. Hill’s counsel court at the same duress, forced her to claiming defense of affirmative date, the theft. On this same in the convenience store participate and at its case appellant, state proceeded present dismiss based upon end moved to state’s motion, court denied appellant’s evidence. The insufficiency *3 Hill. At the against the with its case proceeded state then case, to renewed his earlier motion close of Hill’s dismiss, finding both which court denied before again the trial and Hill theft. guilty appellant confusion when trial causes some foregoing procedure record, by reading arguments such especially pondering the evidentiary that Hill’s confession is of no value appellant its judged evidence must be to him that the state’s to Even time of first motion dismiss. sufficiency appellant’s the view as when the state’s evidence should to accepting appellant’s court, we the
have been considered
the trial
conclude
state’s
by
occurred,
showed that not
the theft
accomplice testimony
only
and Crutchfield
but also
how the
Hill
appellant,
described
and committed the crime.
planned
While
to the introduction of Hill’s written
appellant objected
co-defendant,
confession
him as a
the trial
because
implicated
it had been
court
admitted the confession into evidence after
edited to omit
reference to the
See Moore
properly
any
appellant.
Also,
296,
Ken
(1988).
As above, we have discussed the state’s evidence through *4 Armstrong’s testimony Hill’s redacted written confession clearly occurred, showed the theft and appellant’s suggestion to Thus, is contrary meritless. appellant’s argument is narrowed to whether the state’s other tended evidence to connect appellant theft, with the and we conclude it does.
Officer Bouwknegt confessed, testified that after Hill drove her to 44 in Eastgate North Little Rock where she said the
stolen was money car, located. She got out of the went to police and knocked on the door of the house and returned with a brown purse containing the She money. recovered nine hundred and dollars, the approximate sum taken in the theft. recovery of the took money place within five and one-half hours after the theft. Bouwknegt further testified that the appellant given had the 44 as Eastgate address his home and residence.
Possession of stolen the accused property by has been
57 whether in consider circumstance a proper held as crimes him with the to connect tending was evidence there 534 Ark. 259 Klimas larceny. grant burglary goods stolen held that court has This (1976). S.W.2d is not accomplice shared dwelling from recovered Anderson Olles & alone. standing sufficient corroboration (1976); S.W.2d 755 Cockrill v. in the no evidence exists But 19, 505 (1974). shared his in indicates way that any case present mother, who in no his except Eastgate anyone with at residence store theft. in the convenience way implicated did know conceded he argues Bouwknegt Appellant 44 Eastgate residence at lived who was in the where or Crutchfield suggests He even money. when Hill retrieved the Eastgate the 44 house. taken the stolen might money have resi- Crutchfield’s suggestion concerning possible Appellant’s of his and the remainder speculation dence this house sheer Eastgate gave that arguments ignore fact free to appellant’s The trial court clearly accept residence. true, and concerning being obviously his residence as statement did so. that Hill the aforementioned Given fact retrieved after the from residence short period theft, correctly ruled convenience store we believe the trial court evidence, circumstantial, albeit tended to corroborate appel- lant’s connection with the crime. reasons,
For the above we affirm. Holt, C.J., J., Newbern, Justice, disagree Holt, Jr., dissenting. Chief Jack of this majority’s analysis case. Code addresses 16-89-111(e)(1) (1987) Arkansas Ann. § trial in conviction general provides “[a] cannot had in of an be case any felony upon tending unless other evidence corroborated by connect the of the offense. The defendant commission *5 is not if the offense merely corroboration sufficient it shows that and committed the circumstances thereof.” 435, 652 S.W.2d 16 (1983), In Henderson v. be corrobo- we noted that the of an must rated by independent other evidence which tends connect the crime; defendant with commission it is not sufficient to crime and prove that the was committed the circumstances of the crime. The test for sufficiency corroborating whether, if evidence is accomplice were case, eliminated from the the other totally evidence indepen- establishes the crime and tends to dently connect the accused with its commission. must Corroboration be evidence of a substantive it nature since must be directed toward proving the connection of accused the crime and not directed toward corroborating substantive, in addition to accomplice’s testimony; being
corroborating evidence must be substantial. Substantial evidence is stronger evidence than that which merely raises suspicion guilt; it is evidence which tends to connect the accused with the however, commission the offense charged; something it is less than that evidence in and of necessary itself sustain a conviction. corroborating circumstantial, bemay but it be of must nature and material tend legitimately crime, connect the accused with the commission of the and it may acts, conduct, be furnished declarations, or the accused.
In this the State presented statements made by Hill, Daniels’ co-defendant. Hill’s first statement was oral and Hill’s exculpatory. second statement was written and stated as follows: the, night
Last twenty-seventh, (blanked out) me and and were Ray kidding. (Blanked serious Ray got out) about it. and Ray came into the store and (blanked out) called me pay he phone said was scared told him I was scared. He said was in the Ray Ray car. came in and gave me a sack and to money and left. statement, Hill’s later, third two hours was also written and stated as follows:
Ray Crutchfield I, told me where was at. Rhonda, went and asked where it was said over at (blanked out) Hill, mother’s. Rhonda Sgt. Poe myself, Sgt. Bouwknegt, went over to North Little Rock to (blanked I, out) Hill, mother’s house. run Rhonda up got the money. I brought back and it to give Sgt. Bouwknegt. *6 Bouwknegt, Sgt. testimony the State also presented in North Little Eastgate Hill to 44 went with
who that he stated residence, on knocked as went to up her she Rock and watcher containing inside, with a brown door, purse returned went gave Daniels testified that further Bouwknegt Sgt. money. arrested.According to was when he his home address Eastgate lived at records, Daniels’ mother stated that Sgt. Bouwknegt there, else lived residence, if anyone he did know but that Daniels. particularly in this corroborating evidence test the sufficiency
To Hill, accomplice, of Rhonda we eliminate is sufficient. corroborating evidence whether the and. determine (citing King supra Henderson admission, own Bouwknegt’s Officer (1973)). By S.W.2d where Hill know Daniels lived at the address he did not whether stolen the amount approximating in an amount money retrieved from the convenience store. as the night
Daniels arrested at 12:30 a.m. the same was incident, Eastgate to 44 Bouwknegt went reported Officer who inside the with There is no indication was Hill 2:00 a.m. house, is if nor there anyone, money, Hill retrieved Indeed, we as who in the residence. placed money in are nothing left more than circumstance the convenience amount the amount stolen from approximating store where Hill worked was recovered from residence mother, as his home Daniel’s the address which Daniels listed of his address the time arrest. fact, alone, is See standing
This not sufficient corroboration. Olles & Anderson v. generally found, (1976) (the mere that stolen property fact charge accused had been incarcerated on another for several is
days, in a house the accused and one who an jointly occupied by in its theft is not sufficient corroboration It just as consistent accomplice.) stored the since he presented money, that Crutchfield Hill, mother the one who took it from at Daniels’ actually apartment.
Consequently, respectfully J., in this dissent. Newbern, joins