Winston v. State, 355 Ark. 11

131 S.W.3d 333 (2003) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · November 20, 2003 · No. CR 02-622

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed Brian Winston’s convictions for two counts of capital murder and two counts of aggravated robbery. The court held that Winston’s custodial statements were voluntary despite the alleged promise of assistance by an investigator and that officers had probable cause to arrest him without a warrant. The court also concluded that no prejudicial error appeared in the record.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
W.H. "Dub" Arnold, Chief Justice
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
November 20, 2003
Docket number
CR 02-622
Procedural posture
Winston appealed convictions for two counts of capital murder and two counts of aggravated robbery, challenging the denial of his motion to suppress custodial statements and the validity of his warrantless arrest.
Standard of review
The court independently determined voluntariness based on the totality of the circumstances, but reversed the trial court's suppression ruling only if it was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Conflicts in testimony and witness credibility were left to the trial court. The court applied favorable presumptions to the trial court's ruling on the legality of the arrest, with the appellant bearing the burden of demonstrating error.
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential within Arkansas.
Parties
Brian Winston v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

suppression of evidencemiranda rightsprobable causecriminal procedureappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal procedureconstitutional criminal lawevidenceappellate practice

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Winston's custodial statements were involuntary because he was not adequately advised of his rights before the second statement and because an investigator allegedly promised to help him if he confessed.
  2. Whether Winston's warrantless arrest was invalid for lack of probable cause and required suppression of evidence or reversal of his convictions.

Holdings

  1. The trial court properly denied Winston's motion to suppress because the State established that his statements were voluntarily, knowingly, and intelligently given, and the alleged statement that an investigator would "go to bat" for him did not require suppression under the totality of the circumstances.
  2. The trial court properly found that Winston was validly arrested without a warrant because the officers had reasonable cause, or probable cause, to believe that he had committed a felony.

Key quotations

If a police official makes a false promise which misleads a prisoner, and the prisoner gives a confession because of that false promise, then the confession has not been voluntarily, knowingly and intelligently made. (131 S.W.3d at 336)
Moreover, it is well settled law that an illegal arrest does not void a subsequent conviction. (131 S.W.3d at 338)

Factual background

Kimberly Amos and Karen Stiles were murdered at a Pizza Hut in West Helena, and money and checks were taken. Winston, an employee and the last person seen at the restaurant, was arrested without a warrant after his girlfriend gave police a gun and reported that Winston had told her to hide it. After receiving and waiving his Miranda rights, Winston initially gave an exculpatory account, but during an unrecorded interval investigators allegedly said they would "go to bat" for him; he then made inculpatory statements that were later recorded or written down.

Procedural history

A Phillips County jury convicted Winston of two counts of capital murder and two counts of aggravated robbery. The trial court imposed concurrent sentences of life without parole for each capital-murder conviction and life imprisonment for each aggravated-robbery conviction, denied Winston's suppression motion, and entered judgment. The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…