Summary
The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed Marques Derail Tavron's capital-murder conviction and life sentence. The court held that Tavron failed to preserve his appellate argument concerning the exclusion of portions of his jailhouse confession because he did not present that specific argument to the trial court.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether Tavron preserved for appellate review his argument that the written statement and oral statement were one single confession and that the trial court erred by allowing the State to introduce only selected portions.
- Whether the record contained prejudicial error requiring reversal under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h).
Holdings
- An appellant may not raise on appeal an evidentiary argument that was not presented to the trial court, and may not change the scope or nature of an objection on appeal. Tavron did not argue below that his written and oral statements constituted one statement or that the State improperly selected portions of it; therefore, the issue was not preserved.
- The court's review of the record under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h) disclosed no prejudicial error.
Key quotations
“An Appellant is limited by the scope and nature of the arguments and objections presented at trial, and may not change the grounds for objection on appeal.” (273 S.W.3d at 503)
Factual background
Tavron and others planned to rob Brady Alexander during a purported marijuana transaction. Alexander was held at gunpoint, shot, and later found dead inside his vehicle. After police developed Tavron as a suspect, he gave a statement implicating Martinous Moore. At trial, the State introduced part of Tavron's statement, while Tavron sought to introduce the written statement in its entirety.
Procedural history
A Pulaski County Circuit Court jury convicted Tavron of capital felony murder following a two-day trial on October 23–24, 2006, and he was sentenced to life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed, holding that Tavron failed to preserve the specific evidentiary argument presented on appeal. The court also conducted the required review under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h) and found no prejudicial error.