The second handgun mentioned by the informant was never found. During the search, the police discovered a locked safe inside a small closet in the entry hall by the front door and adjacent to the living room. The informant had not reported seeing a safe in the house, and the officers did not know there was a safe until it was discovered during the search.
The safe was twelve-by-eighteen inches and large enough to contain drugs, drug paraphernalia and firearms. A locksmith was summoned to the scene to open the safe. Once the safe was opened, the officers discovered crystalline substance, methamphetamine, and a Honeywell lock box that contained a crystalline and vegetable residue. Appellee was charged with possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of marijuana with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms, and maintaining a premises for drug activities.
He then filed a motion to suppress, asserting, among other things, that the evidence seized from the locked safe found inside his residence should be suppressed because neither the affidavit for the search warrant nor the warrant itself mentioned a safe, and thus, the search of the safe exceeded the scope of the search authorized by the warrant. Detective Barnett testified during the suppression hearing that he thought the warrant to search the house authorized him to open the safe if it was capable of holding the items that were the subject of the search warrant; and, had he thought that he did not have authority to open the safe, he would have seized the safe and procured a second warrant to open it, albeit with the same information used to obtain the first one.
The circuit court issued an order granting Appellee's motion to suppress the evidence discovered inside the locked safe. The State filed this interlocutory appeal pursuant to Ark. Rule 3 provides in pertinent part:.
Code Ann. The prosecuting attorney shall file, within ten 10 days after the entering of the order, a notice of appeal together with a certificate that the appeal is not taken for the purposes of delay and that the order substantially prejudices the prosecution of the case. Further proceedings in the trial court shall be stayed pending termination of the appeal. If the attorney general, on inspecting the trial record, is satisfied that error has been committed to the prejudice of the state, and that the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law requires review by the Supreme Court, he may take the appeal by filing the transcript of the trial record with the clerk of the Supreme Court within sixty 60 days after the filing of the notice of appeal.
Pursuant to Ark. The transcript of the trial was filed on October 8, , within the sixty-day requirement of Rule 3 c. Under Ark. State v. Howard, Ark. Section a of the rule outlines the permissive grounds for State interlocutory appeals in criminal cases. We have many times stated that the State's ability to appeal is not a matter of right but limited to those cases described under Rule 3. We accept appeals by the State when our holding would be important to the correct and uniform administration of the criminal law.
As a matter of practice, our court has only taken appeals which are narrow in scope and involve the interpretation of law. When an appeal does not present an issue of interpretation of the criminal rules with widespread ramifications, this court has held that such an appeal does not involve the correct and uniform administration of the law. Appeals are not allowed merely to demonstrate the fact that the trial court erred. Therefore, where the resolution of the State's attempted appeal turns on the facts of the case and would not require interpretation of our criminal rules with widespread ramifications, acceptance of the State's appeal is not allowed under Rule 3.
An appeal that raises the issue of application, not interpretation, of a statutory provision does not involve the correct and uniform administration of justice or the criminal law. Where the trial court acts within its discretion after making an evidentiary decision based on the facts on hand or even a mixed question of law and fact, this court will not accept an appeal under Ark. The State argues that the issue to be decided is whether Ark. Appellee, on the other hand, argues that this appeal involves only the application of Rule He suggests that the State's appeal necessarily turns on whether the facts support the circuit court's finding that the search of the locked safe exceeded what was authorized by the warrant; that is, whether the circuit court acted within its discretion after making an evidentiary decision based on the facts.
Pursuant to Rule In ruling on Appellee's motion to suppress, the circuit court ruled that the evidence found inside the safe during the execution of a search warrant at Appellee's residence should be suppressed because the safe was locked and the officers had an opportunity to take the safe out of the home and obtain a second search warrant. Thus, the issue on appeal is whether Rule In other words, the State's appeal presents a legal question regarding the scope of search warrants and whether the circuit court misinterpreted Rule This issue involves the correct and uniform administration of the law, and we have jurisdiction pursuant to Ark.
The scope of search shall be only such as is authorized by the warrant and is reasonably necessary to discover the persons or things specified therein. Upon discovery of the persons or things so specified, the officer shall take possession or custody of them and search no further under authority of the warrant. If in the course of such search, the officer discovers things not specified in the warrant which he reasonably believes to be subject to seizure, he may also take possession of the things so discovered.
Marshals developed information regarding his possible location and provided that information to Mexican authorities, who took him into custody Marshals News. November 07, - The U. Have a Tip? Download Adobe Flash Player. Federal Government, U. Richards dragged Taylor into the prison cell they had not been held in the cell, but in the guard's room across the hallway. Richards dragged Taylor under some of the straw mattress to put pressure on his wounds and slow the bleeding and then went to get help.
Federal Court Finder | United States Courts
Both Richards and Taylor survived. Richards had escaped all harm except for a bullet grazing his ear. Joseph's younger brother Samuel Harrison Smith had come to visit the same day and, after evading capture from a group of attackers, is said to have been the first Latter-day Saint to arrive, and helped attend the bodies back to Nauvoo.
He died 30 days later, possibly related to injuries sustained avoiding the mob. There have been conflicting reports about injuries to members of the mob during the attack, and whether any died. Shortly after the events occurred, Taylor wrote that he heard that two of the attackers died when Joseph Smith shot them with his pistol. Most accounts seem to agree that at least three mob members were wounded by Smith's gunfire, but there is no other evidence that any of them died as a result.
John Wills was shot in the arm, William Voras was shot in the shoulder, and William Gallaher was shot in the face.
Allen possibly the fourth man were all indicted for the murder of the Smiths. Wills, Voras, and Gallaher, perhaps conscious that their wounds could prove that they were involved in the mob, fled the county after being indicted and were never brought to trial.
Stay up to date with the latest on the law!
Joseph and Hyrum Smith's bodies were returned to Nauvoo the next day. The bodies were cleaned and examined, and death masks were made, preserving their facial features and structures. A public viewing was held on June 29, , after which empty coffins weighted with sandbags were used at the public burial.
This was done to prevent theft or mutilation of the bodies.
The coffins bearing the bodies of the Smith brothers were initially buried under the unfinished Nauvoo House , then disinterred and deeply reburied under an out-building on the Smith homestead. In , Frederick M. He authorized civil engineer William O. Hands to conduct an excavation to find the Smiths' bodies.
Hands conducted extensive digging on the Smith homestead, and located the bodies, as well as finding the remains of Joseph's wife, Emma , who was buried in the same place. The remains—which were badly decomposed—were examined and photographed, and the bodies were reinterred close by in Nauvoo. After the murders, there was speculation about who was responsible.
Governor Ford was accused of knowing about the plot to kill Smith. Ford denied this, but he later wrote that it was good for the Mormons to have been driven out of the state and said that their beliefs and actions were too different to have survived in Illinois. He said Smith was "the most successful impostor in modern times,"  and that some people "expect more protection from the laws than the laws are able to furnish in the face of popular excitement.
Ultimately, five defendants— Thomas C. Sharp , Mark Aldrich , William N. Grover , Jacob C. Davis and Levi Williams —were tried for the murders of the Smiths. All five defendants were acquitted by a jury.
Fort Smith, AR Jail Inmates
The trial jury was composed exclusively of non-Mormons after the defense counsel convinced the judge to dismiss the initial jury, which included Mormons. After the death of the Smiths, a succession crisis occurred in the Latter Day Saint movement. Hyrum Smith, the Assistant President of the Church , was intended to succeed Joseph as President of the Church ,  but because he was killed with his brother, the proper succession procedure became unclear. Rigdon was the senior surviving member of the First Presidency , a body that had led the church since At the time of the Smiths' deaths, Rigdon was estranged from Smith due to differences in doctrinal beliefs.
Young, president of the Quorum of the Twelve , claimed authority was handed by Smith to the Quorum of the Twelve. Strang claimed that Smith designated him as the successor in a letter that was received by Strang a week before Smith's death. Later, others came to believe that Smith's son, Joseph Smith III , was the rightful successor under the doctrine of lineal succession. A schism resulted, with each claimant attracting followers.
Rigdon's followers were known as Rigdonites , some of which later established The Church of Jesus Christ. From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia. Founder and leader of the Latter Day Saint movement.