Green v. State, 423 S.W.3d 62

Chad Green was convicted of four counts of capital murder and one count of kidnapping, receiving life terms for each capital murder and 40 years for kidnapping.
Chad argued the State advanced inconsistent prosecutorial theories in his trial versus Billy Green’s trial, or that the State was judicially estopped from such inconsistencies.
Billy Green’s earlier convictions were reversed and remanded for new trial due to error in admitting reputation/bad-acts evidence, with Billy later retried.
Chad had filed a Motion to Prohibit the Prosecution from Arguing Contradictory Theories of the Case and a Motion to suppress two police statements from 1998; both were denied.
On appeal, Chad contends due process and judicial estoppel issues, and Rule 2.3 suppression issues; the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed without reversing on these grounds.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether inconsistent prosecutorial theories violated due process	Chad argues Smith v. Groose applies.	State says Smith does not apply; Billy’s theory was not comparable.	Not reached on merits; no basis to evaluate due to Billy’s remand.
Whether judicial estoppel barred inconsistent theories	Chad invokes judicial estoppel against the State.	No earlier proceeding to compare since Billy’s case was reversed.	Inapplicable; no earlier adequate proceeding to compare.
Whether August 8, 1998 statement was properly admitted under Rule 2.3	Rule 2.3 violation requires suppression.	Officers took steps to show no obligation to comply; not clearly against the preponderance.	Not clearly against the preponderance; denial affirmed.
Whether October 17, 1998 statement was properly admitted	Seizure occurred; Miranda warnings required.	Mirandized; not suppressed.	Seizure occurred but statement admissible; not clearly against the preponderance.

Palmer v. Carden, 239 Ark. 336 (1965) (no action remains; rights restored to pretrial state)
Forever Green Athletic Fields v. Lasiter Constr., 384 S.W.3d 540 (Ark. 2011) (reversed/remanded restores parties to pre-trial position)
Ex parte Nickerson, 893 S.W.2d 546 (Tex.Crim.App.2009) (no conviction remains after reversal/remand)
Baker v. State, 363 Ark. 339 (2005) (Rule 2.3 warnings; need to clarify no obligation to comply)
United States v. Mendenhall, 446 U.S. 544 (1980) (test for seizure under Fourth Amendment)
Vance v. State, 2011 Ark. 243 (Ark. 2011) (de novo review of suppression rulings; totality of circumstances)
Morgan v. State, 2009 Ark. 257 (Ark. 2009) (standard for reviewing suppression rulings)
Hollis v. State, 346 Ark. 175 (2001) (require authority/appellate support for arguments)