Coleman v. State
2017 Ark. 218
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Roosevelt Rashaun Coleman was serving probation and suspended sentences from two 2011 residential-burglary convictions when he was tried in 2016 for aggravated robbery with a firearm enhancement.
- During investigation of a September 14, 2015 Dollar General robbery, police recovered a striped shirt, a cell phone registered to Coleman near the shirt, and cash drawer items; a witness (Nicola Walters) said she was parked nearby to pick up Coleman.
- Coleman was arrested November 4, 2015, and interviewed November 5 by Detective Freddy Williams; during the recorded interview Coleman twice said he did not want to talk, but the detective continued questioning and Coleman ultimately confessed.
- At trial Coleman moved to suppress his statement as violative of his Fifth Amendment right, moved to exclude Walters’s out-of-court statements as hearsay, and moved to prevent his 2011 residential-burglary convictions from being treated as violent felonies under the 2015 habitual-offender amendment. All motions were denied; he was convicted of aggravated robbery and the firearm enhancement, sentenced as a habitual offender to life plus 15 years, and the earlier probation/suspended sentences were revoked.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the revocations but reversed and remanded the aggravated-robbery conviction and firearm enhancement because the custodial confession should have been suppressed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Coleman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of custodial confession after invocation of right to remain silent | Confession was voluntary; Coleman waived or rescinded any prior invocation by later statements | Coleman unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent; continued questioning made any subsequent statements involuntary | Court: Coleman unequivocally invoked silence; officer continued questioning; confession should have been suppressed; conviction reversed and remanded |
| Harmless-error analysis for admission of confession | Evidence aside from confession (phone, shirt proximity, Walters’s statements) overwhelmingly supports guilt; error harmless | Confession was central; remaining evidence insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt without confession | Court: Error was not harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; reversal required |
| Use of 2011 residential-burglary convictions as violent felonies under 2015 amendment to habitual-offender statute | Act 895 (2015) adding residential burglary to violent- felony list applies to enhance sentence now; habitual-offender statutes are not ex post facto | Retroactive application violates due process / ex post facto because burglaries were committed and convicted before amendment | Court: Habitual-offender statute and amendment are not ex post facto; amendment gives notice of future enhanced punishment; denial of motion to bar was correct |
| Admission of Walters’s out-of-court statements (hearsay) | Statements were admissible (trial court’s ruling) | Statements are inadmissible hearsay and should have been excluded | Court: Declined to rule on this evidentiary point because issue may differ on retrial |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitaker v. State, 348 Ark. 90 (Ark. 2002) (clarifies invocation/waiver of right to remain silent and requirement that questioning cease after an unequivocal invocation)
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1966) (establishes custodial-warning requirements and that invocation of rights must be scrupulously honored)
- Michigan v. Mosley, 423 U.S. 96 (U.S. 1975) (discusses limitations on reinitiating questioning after a defendant invokes right to silence)
- Criddle v. State, 338 Ark. 744 (Ark. 2000) (directs excision of improperly admitted confession for harmless-error analysis)
- Schalski v. State, 322 Ark. 63 (Ark. 1991) (harmless-error standard for constitutional errors requires proof beyond a reasonable doubt that error did not contribute to verdict)
- Sims v. State, 262 Ark. 288 (Ark. 1977) (holds habitual-offender statutes are not ex post facto laws)
- Garrett v. State, 347 Ark. 860 (Ark. 2002) (amendments to habitual-offender provisions give notice that future conduct can lead to enhanced punishment)