Gamet v. State
2017 Ark. App. 206
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- On June 14, 2015, Preston Lee Gamet drove a truck that struck several houses in Saline County; his post-incident breath test registered .09.
- Gamet was tried by jury and convicted of first-offense DWI (misdemeanor) and second-degree criminal mischief (Class D felony).
- At trial Gamet testified he had taken Ambien and did not remember events until he was in the backseat of a patrol car.
- Gamet moved for directed verdicts and renewed them during trial, then reopened his case to admit medical records but did not renew the directed-verdict motions at the close of all evidence.
- Gamet moved to suppress pre-arrest statements made at the crash scene (admissions that he was the driver, that he had been drinking, and an explanation of events); the trial court denied the motion, finding he was not in custody.
- Gamet also argued on appeal the trial court denied him a meaningful opportunity for allocution at sentencing; he did not object at trial but did testify at sentencing.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Gamet) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for DWI and felony criminal mischief | Evidence insufficient: lacked required mental state for DWI; no proof of actual damages for felony mischief; driving was not a voluntary act | Evidence at trial (including testimony and breath test) supported convictions; procedural default also applies | Waived — Gamet failed to renew directed-verdict motions after reopening his case to introduce medical records; court refused to reach merits |
| Admissibility of pre-arrest statements; whether Gamet was "in custody" for Miranda purposes | Statements should be suppressed because he was effectively in custody and Miranda warnings were required | Officer was conducting a preliminary on-scene investigation under Rule 3.1; detention was not custodial and statements were voluntary | Affirmed — Court found no custodial interrogation; Miranda warnings not required for the scene statements |
| Denial of meaningful opportunity for allocution at sentencing | Trial court failed to ask if he had legal cause to show why judgment should not be pronounced; reversible error | No contemporaneous objection; defendant testified at sentencing so no prejudice | Not reversible — no objection at trial and Gamet spoke at sentencing, so no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) (Miranda custodial-interrogation rule)
- Davis v. State, 348 S.W.3d 553 (Ark. 2009) (failure to renew directed-verdict motion after close of all evidence waives sufficiency challenge)
- Goff v. State, 19 S.W.3d 579 (Ark. 2000) (failure to allow allocution can be reversible error, but waiver rules apply)
- Hill v. State, 962 S.W.2d 762 (Ark. 1998) (defendant's testimony at sentencing can cure prejudice from lack of formal allocution)