Page:Walls v. State (1999).pdf/5

From Wikisource
Jump to navigation Jump to search
This page has been proofread, but needs to be validated.
494
Walls v. State
Cite as 336 Ark. 490 (1999)
[336


hearing, his defense counsel first objected on grounds of relevancy to the testimony of Dorothy Stocks, Heath's grandmother, about the Stocks family murders. Delving into the background of the murdered family members, the prosecutor had asked about the occupation of Joe and Barbara Stocks and what Heather, Heath's sister, was like. After defense counsel objected, the prosecutor answered that there was no jury involved at the hearing, and she added that she would "relate" the Stocks deaths as far as their effect on Heath. The circuit judge allowed her to proceed. Defense counsel objected a second time on relevancy grounds to Dorothy Stocks's testimony about the last time she saw Heath before the murders. But the circuit judge again overruled the objection on the basis that these were victim-impact statements and not evidentiary matters.

Heath's other grandmother, Annie May Harris, was called as the next witness. She testified that her daughter, Barbara Stocks, had told her that she had found Heath and Walls in bed together in her house. Mrs. Harris told the judge that the "horrible secret" grew inside Heath until he exploded, and his family was gone. She said that Walls told Heath he was training him to be a "hit man." At that point, defense counsel objected for the same purpose as his previous objection and said that this was "hearsay on hearsay on hearsay" and that there was no way to cross-examine the witness on these assertions. The circuit judge reminded defense counsel that he was "not a jury." The following colloquy ensued where the circuit judge assured defense counsel that he could separate the relevant from the irrelevant:

THE COURT: You're going to have to understand that I am trained in the law, and that I will take what information and the facts that they give me and disseminate that and use —

DEFENSE COUNSEL: I just wanted to —

THE COURT: — what's appropriate and discard that. Part of the reason for a victim impact statement is for healing and therapy, and so I'm going to allow them to do this.

DEFENSE COUNSEL:I just didn't want to look like an idiot sitting here, Judge, and not say anything.