Conway v. State, 479 S.W.3d 1

Background

Samuel L. Conway was convicted by a Garland County jury of capital murder (as an accomplice to aggravated robbery) and aggravated robbery for the 2005 killing and robbery of Mary Adams; the State waived the death penalty and Conway received life without parole plus 588 months.
A central piece of evidence was a 2005 written statement, attributed to Conway, prepared by Detective Jerry Cotten from notes after an interview; the original handwritten notes and the signed Miranda form were not produced. Cotten and Sergeant Tim Smith testified Conway was Mirandized and voluntarily gave the statement. Conway disputed his memory of signing or being read Miranda rights but conceded the statement appeared to bear his signature and portions were accurate.
The written statement placed Conway at the victim’s house with his brother Detric and co-defendant Dominic Hobson, described Detric’s use of a sawed-off .22 rifle to threaten and then shoot Mary Adams at close range, and recounted Conway’s participation in searching the house and taking property.
Conway asserted an affirmative defense of duress (claiming Detric coerced him) but presented no additional evidence at trial beyond his statement. The circuit court limited extrinsic testimony about Detric’s violent propensity unless Conway testified about it himself.
Conway moved for directed verdict (arguing insufficient evidence of intent, use of force, and accomplice liability), moved to suppress his statement, requested mistrial for prosecutor remarks in closing, and challenged a nonmodel jury instruction; the court denied each relief and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Conway)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1) Sufficiency / directed verdict	Statement insufficient to prove Conway had purposeful intent or that he personally committed armed robbery; duress established.	Evidence (Conway’s statement and others) showed joint participation, theft, and accomplice liability; intent inferred from actions.	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports accomplice liability and capital-murder elements.
2) Motion in limine limiting proof about Detric	Ruling foreclosed admission of third-party evidence about Detric’s violent propensity and impaired defense.	Limitation appropriate; duress evidence must be proffered and Conway could testify about his knowledge of Detric.	Affirmed — issue not preserved for review because Conway failed to proffer the excluded evidence.
3) Suppression of custodial statement	Statement should be suppressed because Miranda form missing, notes destroyed, officers’ recollections vague, and signature/memory disputed.	Statement, signed and stating Miranda warnings, plus testimony that warnings were given, showed voluntary and admissible waiver.	Affirmed — on totality, suppression denial not clearly against preponderance of evidence.
4) Mistrial for prosecutor’s closing remarks	Prosecutor’s comment about investigative work outside the record was prejudicial and warranted mistrial (Wicks).	Remarks were unnecessary but not materially prejudicial; trial testimony explained delay in prosecution.	Affirmed — unobjected remark not so prejudicial to trigger Wicks exception.
5) Nonmodel jury instruction (accomplice language)	Inserted language duplicated accomplice instruction and was confusing/incorrect for single-defendant trial.	Language correctly stated law: accomplice liability permits conviction without proving participation in every act.	Affirmed — instruction was not erroneous; taken in context it correctly emphasized accomplice liability.

Key Cases Cited

Davis v. State, 115 Ark. 566, 173 S.W. 829 (1914) (discusses limits of confession evidence for proving intent)
Francis v. State, 189 Ark. 288, 71 S.W.2d 469 (1934) (confession-only intent issues)
Purifoy v. State, 307 Ark. 482, 822 S.W.2d 374 (1991) (standards for accomplice liability and factors showing connection to crime)
Turner v. State, 2014 Ark. 415, 443 S.W.3d 535 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence; consider evidence supporting verdict)
Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980) (prosecutorial misconduct and when unobjected comments require reversal)
Airsman v. State, 2014 Ark. 500, 451 S.W.3d 565 (independent review of suppression rulings using totality of circumstances)
Fritts v. State, 2013 Ark. 505, 431 S.W.3d 227 (State bears burden to prove voluntariness of custodial statements)
Edison v. State, 2015 Ark. 376, 472 S.W.3d 474 (failure to proffer evidence precludes appellate review)