Charland v. State
2011 Ark. App. 4
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Appellant Brian Charland was convicted by a Carroll County jury of three counts of rape and sentenced to 75 years in the Arkansas DOC.
- Investigators investigated a rape allegation involving Charland’s07-year-old daughter A.C., interviewing the child and parents the evening of the report.
- The next day, police returned to Charland’s home; officers entered with consent and questioned his wife, while Charland was asked to go to the police station for a statement.
- At the station, Charland received Miranda warnings and gave written and videotaped statements incriminating himself.
- Charland moved to suppress his statements arguing Rule 2.3 required a warning that there was no legal obligation to comply; suppression was denied after a suppression hearing and trial.
- Charland argued the surrounding circumstances created an unlawful seizure and coerced statements; the court reviewed de novo for totality of the circumstances and affirmed denial of suppression.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether failure to warn under Rule 2.3 required suppression | Charland | Charland | No suppression; totality supports voluntariness |
| Whether the encounter constituted an unlawful seizure | Charland | Charland | Not a seizure under totality of circumstances |
| Whether Rule 3.1 stop was valid and permitted the interaction | Charland | Charland | Rule 3.1 valid; permissible investigatory stop |
| Whether Miranda warnings were properly administered and statements voluntary | Charland | Charland | Miranda warnings given; statements voluntary and admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Bell, 329 Ark. 422 (Ark. 1997) (Rule 2.3 warning not required as bright-line; totality of circumstances)
- Efurd v. State, 334 Ark. 596 (Ark. 1998) (probable cause relevant for arrest; Rule 2.3 concerns more than seizure)
- Baker v. State, 363 Ark. 339 (Ark. 2005) (limitations of Rule 2.3 warnings and voluntariness considerations)
- LeFever v. State, 208 S.W.3d 812 (Ark. App. 2005) (de novo review of suppression and factual findings)
- Flanagan v. State, 243 S.W.3d 866 (Ark. 2006) (reasonableness of police steps to convey lack of obligation)
- Howell v. State, 89 S.W.3d 343 (Ark. 2002) (reliance on trial testimony to affirm suppression ruling)
- Grillot v. State, 107 S.W.3d 136 (Ark. 2003) (context of statements and voluntariness)
- Riggs v. State, 3 S.W.3d 305 (Ark. 1999) (limits of trial testimony to reverse/affirm suppression)
- Blevins v. State, 235 S.W.3d 921 (Ark. App. 2006) (appellate caution re: suppression review and voluntariness)