Diana Nichole Robertson v. State of Arkansas

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed Diana Nichole Robertson's convictions for capital murder, aggravated robbery, and arson. The court held that her challenge to the refusal to give a duress instruction on the murder charge was not preserved, and that her statement was admissible because her question, "Do I need a lawyer?" was not an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel. The court also declined to review her hearsay challenge because she did not properly contest the trial court's final ruling admitting the testimony under the state-of-mind exception.

Holdings

1. A challenge to the refusal to give a jury instruction is not preserved when the appellant fails to proffer the proposed instruction into the record and have it included and abstracted for appellate review.
2. The question "Do I need a lawyer?" was ambiguous and did not constitute an unequivocal invocation of the right to counsel requiring police to cease questioning.
3. The appellate court will not consider an argument that evidence was inadmissible under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 803(3) when the defendant did not contest that evidentiary basis in the circuit court after the court ruled the testimony admissible under the rule.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Robertson preserved for appellate review the circuit court's refusal to instruct the jury on duress as a defense to capital murder.
2. Whether Robertson unequivocally invoked her Fifth Amendment right to counsel by asking, "Do I need a lawyer?" during the December 3 interrogation or through her statements and circumstances on December 5.
3. Whether the circuit court erred by admitting B.M.'s testimony about statements by Robertson and Leflore under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 803(3).

Disposition

affirmed