TaiLexi AI U.S. Case Law

Walton v. Arkansas

Walton v. Arkansas, 371 U.S. 28 (1962)
Download
Format
Include

Star paging (*137) is kept for pin cites.

Court
Supreme Court of the United States
Decided
October 22, 1962
Docket
No. 18 M
Judges
Per Curiam
Citations
371 U.S. 2883 S. Ct. 99 L. Ed. 2d 91962 U.S. LEXIS 337

Opinion — Per Curiam

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.

How later courts describe this case

No later court has written an explanatory parenthetical about this case yet.

Cited by 27 cases

View all citing references →
1963: 41964: 81965: 11966: 21969: 11970: 11972: 11975: 11977: 11979: 12015: 12016: 12019: 12021: 12023: 12026: 119632026peak 1964 · 8

Relies on it most ⓘ

  1. Adamson v. Nash218 F. Supp. 841 (W.D. Mo. 1963)
  2. Freeman v. State392 P.2d 542 (Idaho 1964)
  3. Billy Joe Wright v. Fred R. Dickson, Warden, California State Penitentiary336 F.2d 878 (9th Cir. 1964)
  4. Ex Parte Rains555 S.W.2d 478 (Tex. Crim. App. 1977)
  5. People v. Holcomb235 N.W.2d 343 (Mich. 1975)
  6. People v. Perez594 P.2d 1 (Cal. 1979)

Most recent

  1. Anthony Augustus v. Jacob DuncanNo. 2:26-cv-00212 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 7, 2026)
  2. M., individually and as parent to D.M. v. JaraNo. 2:20-cv-01562 (D. Nev. Apr. 14, 2023)
  3. American River AG, Inc. v. Vestis GroupNo. 2:19-cv-02203 (E.D. Cal. Aug. 30, 2021)
  4. Phillips-Kerley v. City of Fresno Fire DepartmentNo. 1:18-cv-00438 (E.D. Cal. Dec. 4, 2019)
  5. State v. Baltazar Sanchez UriasNo. 08-15-00176-CR (Tex. App.—El Paso July 6, 2016)
  6. In re Thomas Lytle and Ellen LytleNo. 12-15-00216-CV (Tex. App.—Tyler Oct. 9, 2015)

Citing references are not a citator: they show that a later opinion cites this case, not whether it followed, distinguished, or overruled it. Check negative history before relying on this case.

Authorities cited 2

DepthCaseCited by
Hamilton v. Alabama, 368 U.S. 52 (1961) 1,038
Walton v. State, 350 S.W.2d 302 (Ark. 1961) 2

Keyboard shortcuts

/Focus the search box
j kNext / previous result
EnterOpen the selected result
xAdd / remove the selected result from the download list
n pNext / previous search term in a case
cCopy the citation of the current case
+ −Larger / smaller reading text
?Show this list