560 S.W.3d 509
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Jamal Akram was arrested after his girlfriend, Linda Hatcher, was found beaten to death; he was the only other person in the house.
- Akram was taken into custody around midnight; detectives did not interview him that night due to suspected intoxication.
- The next afternoon (about 2:35 p.m.), Detective Huckabay read Miranda warnings, Akram signed a waiver, and gave a recorded statement in which he said he did not remember killing Linda and did not expressly deny guilt.
- Akram moved to suppress his custodial statement, arguing his prior intoxication and lack of glasses rendered his waiver involuntary; the circuit court denied the motion after hearing testimony and reviewing the recording.
- At trial Akram was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced as a habitual offender to 60 years. He appealed, arguing (1) the suppression denial was error, (2) prosecutorial comments in closing improperly referenced his failure to deny guilt, and (3) insufficient evidence supported the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Akram's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Akram argued the State failed to prove first-degree murder | State argued the evidence presented to the jury was sufficient | Not preserved on appeal (Akram's directed-verdict motions were too general); appellate review declined |
| Denial of motion to suppress custodial statement | Waiver involuntary due to prior intoxication and inability to read Miranda form (no glasses) | Waiver was knowing and voluntary: interview occurred >15 hours later, Akram coherent, read Miranda aloud and signed | Denial affirmed — circuit court's factual findings not clearly erroneous and waiver voluntary |
| Prosecutor's closing-argument remarks | Prosecutor improperly commented on Akram's failure to deny killing Linda | No contemporaneous objection at trial; State invokes preservation rule and no exception applies | Not preserved on appeal; claim rejected |
| Applicability of contemporaneous-objection/Wicks exception | Akram implied exception should apply | State said no Wicks exception fits these facts | Court found no applicable Wicks exception; issue not preserved |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 349 Ark. 331 (double-jeopardy requires sufficiency reviewed first)
- Grillot v. State, 353 Ark. 294 (factors and totality test for voluntariness of custodial statements)
- Harper v. State, 359 Ark. 142 (officer testimony about sobriety supports denial of suppression)
- Lard v. State, 2014 Ark. 1 (contemporaneous-objection rule for closing argument preserved at trial)
- Smith v. State, 330 Ark. 50 (failure to contemporaneously object waives prosecutorial-comment claim)
- Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 (exceptions to contemporaneous-objection rule)