Supreme Court of the United States, 1962

Walton v. Arkansas

Supreme Court of the United States · Decided October 22, 1962 · Per Curiam

371 U.S. 28; 83 S. Ct. 9; 9 L. Ed. 2d 9; 1962 U.S. LEXIS 337 (United States Reports)

Counsel

John C. Finley, Jr. for petitioner., Frank Holt, Attorney General of Arkansas, and Thorp Thomas and Jack L. Lessenberry, Assistant Attorneys General, for respondent.

Cases that cite this one

26 later published cases cite this decision. The 25 that cite it most often are listed here.

People v. Perez (Cal. 1979)
People v. Holcomb (Mich. 1975)
State v. Rees (Iowa 1966)
Billy Joe Wright v. Fred R. Dickson, Warden, California State Penitentiary (9th Cir. 1964)
Adamson v. Nash (District Court, W.D. Missouri 1963)
Freeman v. State (Idaho 1964)
Ex Parte Rains (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)
Ex Parte Auten (Tex. Crim. App. 1970)
Madison v. Tahash (D. Minn. 1966)
State v. Owens (Mo. 1965)
Walton v. State (Ark. 1963)
State v. Kirkland (N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div. 1964)
State v. Morrocco (Conn. App. Ct. 1964)
M., individually and as parent to D.M. v. Jara (District Court, D. Nevada 2023)
American River AG, Inc. v. Vestis Group (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2021)
Phillips-Kerley v. City of Fresno Fire Department (United States District Court for the Eastern District of California 2019)
State v. Baltazar Sanchez Urias (Tex. App. 2016)
in Re: Thomas Lytle and Ellen Lytle (Tex. App. 2015)
United States v. John Carneglia (2d Cir. 1972)
State v. Chase (N.H. 1969)
James M. Pierce Corporation v. Commissioner of Internal Revenue (8th Cir. 1964)
Sterling Edward Newcomb v. United States (9th Cir. 1964)
Hoskins v. Warden of Maryland House of Correction (Md. 1964)
Kentile, Inc. v. Local 457, United Rubber, Cork, Linoleum & Plastic Workers of America (District Court, E.D. New York 1964)
John Munoz v. United States (9th Cir. 1963)

This list shows which later cases cite this one. It does not say how they treated it, and no review of that has been done. Not a substitute for Shepard’s or KeyCite — verify before relying.

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.

Case-law data current through December 31, 2025. Source: CourtListener bulk data.