Boyd v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 407

On Sept. 13, 2013, a masked man with what appeared to be a gun robbed Bank of the Ozarks of $4,000; surveillance and teller descriptions included clothing, mask, and getaway car/license plate.
Michael Boyd was stopped about an hour later driving a black 2012 Toyota Corolla with matching license plate and found with over $2,700 on his person.
Boyd was interviewed at the police station, waived Miranda, and after an hour made inculpatory statements admitting he visited three banks that day, wore a mask, had a fake gun, and took money.
Detective Gibbons testified he repeatedly said he could not promise a bond but also falsely told Boyd that multiple people had identified him and traffic cameras placed his vehicle at the scene.
Kathryn Pannell (a teller at a nearby Metropolitan Bank) identified Boyd from a six-person photo array about four months after the robbery and positively at trial; trial court denied motions to suppress the confession and the photo identification.
A jury convicted Boyd of aggravated robbery and theft; he appealed challenging (1) denial of directed verdict (sufficiency), (2) denial of suppression of his custodial statements, and (3) denial of suppression of the photographic ID. The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	Boyd's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Sufficiency / Directed verdict	State failed to prove Boyd was the robber or represented he was armed	Surveillance, teller ID, Boyd's admissions, matching getaway car and cash provided substantial evidence	Affirmed — evidence sufficient to submit to jury
Suppression of custodial statements (coercion/false promises)	Gibbons promised leniency/bond and lied; confession involuntary	Gibbons repeatedly said he could not promise a bond; Boyd experienced with criminal justice; statements were voluntary under totality	Affirmed — no clear error; confession voluntary under totality of circumstances
Effect of officer misrepresentations during interrogation	Officer’s false statements (identifications, cameras) rendered confession involuntary	False factual statements alone do not invalidate a voluntary confession absent proof they procured an untrue statement	Affirmed — misrepresentations did not render confession involuntary
Suppression of photo identification (unduly suggestive / reliability)	Photo array was suggestive; long delay (~4 months) and limited observation made ID unreliable	Array contained similar-looking individuals; no suggestive conduct; witness certain and reliable	Affirmed — photo spread not unduly suggestive and ID sufficiently reliable for jury to weigh

Hinton v. State, 2015 Ark. 479, 477 S.W.3d 512 (standard for reviewing directed-verdict/sufficiency)
Davis v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 658, 430 S.W.3d 190 (substantial-evidence review principles)
Wyles v. State, 368 Ark. 646, 249 S.W.3d 782 (evidentiary sufficiency)
Eichelberger v. State, 323 Ark. 551, 916 S.W.2d 109 (consideration of evidence supporting verdict)
Turner v. State, 2014 Ark. 415, 443 S.W.3d 535 (definition of substantial evidence)
Grillot v. State, 353 Ark. 294, 107 S.W.3d 136 (State’s burden to show voluntariness of custodial statements)
Clark v. State, 374 Ark. 292, 287 S.W.3d 567 (totality-of-circumstances test for promises of leniency)
Fuson v. State, 2011 Ark. 374, 383 S.W.3d 848 (two-step inquiry for promises of leniency and defendant vulnerability)
Goodwin v. State, 373 Ark. 53, 281 S.W.3d 258 (officer misrepresentations do not automatically render confession involuntary)
Roberts v. State, 352 Ark. 489, 102 S.W.3d 482 (ambiguity of promises and defendant vulnerability)
Williams v. State, 2014 Ark. 253, 435 S.W.3d 483 (reliability as linchpin for identification admissibility)
Kimble v. State, 331 Ark. 155, 959 S.W.2d 43 (factors for evaluating identification reliability)
King v. State, 323 Ark. 558, 916 S.W.2d 725 (weight of identification is for jury)
Dixon v. State, 310 Ark. 460, 839 S.W.2d 173 (review of suggestive-identification rulings)
Bishop v. State, 310 Ark. 479, 839 S.W.2d 6 (due-process standard for unnecessarily suggestive procedures)