Summary
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed Myka Talley’s convictions and eight consecutive life sentences for seven counts of rape and one count of kidnapping. The court held that requesting and obtaining a buccal DNA swab after Talley invoked his rights did not constitute continued interrogation or violate the Fifth Amendment, upheld the voluntariness finding, and affirmed admission of the victim’s statements as excited utterances.
Topics
Practice areas
Questions Presented
- Whether requesting a DNA sample after Talley invoked his rights to counsel and to remain silent constituted continued interrogation in violation of the Fifth Amendment.
- Whether Talley's consent to the DNA sample was involuntary because it was allegedly coerced by police conduct after his invocation of Miranda rights.
- Whether the circuit court abused its discretion by admitting the victim's statements to police under the excited-utterance exception to the hearsay rule.
- Whether the police officers' testimony impermissibly bolstered or provided a graphic description of the victim's testimony, where that argument was not preserved for appeal.
Holdings
- A police request for a DNA sample is not interrogation under Miranda and does not violate an accused's Fifth Amendment rights to counsel or to remain silent, even when made after those rights have been invoked.
- The circuit court properly found that Talley's consent to DNA sampling was voluntary under the totality of the circumstances.
- The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the victim's statements to police under the excited-utterance exception to the hearsay rule.
- The court declined to consider the argument because Talley did not raise it at trial and therefore failed to preserve it for appellate review.
Key quotations
“The police request for a DNA sample did not constitute continued interrogation under Miranda.” (14)
“The taking of a DNA sample, although potentially incriminating, is neither testimony nor does it lead to a communicative act.” (14)
“To be an excited utterance, the statement must appear to be spontaneous, excited, or impulsive, rather than the product of reflection and deliberation.” (17)
Factual background
After a woman was repeatedly assaulted and raped in her home, police arrested Talley and took him to an interrogation room. Talley acknowledged understanding his Miranda rights, refused to sign a waiver, invoked his right to remain silent, and indicated that he wanted counsel. After police ceased questioning him about the crime, they repeatedly requested a DNA sample; Talley responded, “Y’all are going to get it anyway, right?” and police obtained a buccal swab that matched DNA collected from the victim. At trial, two officers testified about statements the victim made shortly after escaping and calling 9-1-1.
Procedural history
A Miller County jury convicted Talley of seven counts of rape and one count of kidnapping and imposed eight consecutive life sentences. The circuit court denied Talley's motion to suppress a buccal swab and DNA-test results, found his consent voluntary, and admitted police testimony under the excited-utterance hearsay exception. The Supreme Court of Arkansas exercised jurisdiction because the case involved a life sentence and affirmed.