Gulley v. State
2012 Ark. 368
| Ark. | 2012Background
- Gulley was convicted of capital murder of Amy Smith and attempted capital murder of Naaman Moss; sentenced to life without parole, 30 years, and a 15-year firearm enhancement.
- Three text messages allegedly from Gulley (via a prepaid number assigned to him) were admitted at trial; messages were obtained by subpoenas served on Verizon before his testimony.
- State relied on the Stored Communications Act arguments and privacy concerns raised by Gulley; trial court limited admissible messages to three from Gulley’s number.
- Gulley argued the subpoena-based procurement violated the SCA and user's Fourth Amendment/Arkansas Constitution rights; he also challenged authentication and hearsay.
- Appellate court held Gulley failed to preserve SCA/Arkansas Constitution claims for review; the text messages were properly authenticated, admissible, and the subpoena power was not abusively exercised; overall, the verdict and sentences were affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of SCA/constitutional challenge | Gulley: subpoenas violated SCA and constitutional rights. | State: claims not preserved; subpoena power reasonable; no abuse. | SCA/Arkansas-constitutional claims not preserved; reviewed only on preservation grounds. |
| Admissibility of text messages as evidence | Messages were hearsay or unauthenticated. | Messages authenticated; content from Gulley’s number; admissible. | Three messages authenticated and admitted; hearsay challenge not upheld. |
| Authentication sufficiency | Prosecution failed to prove Gulley authored the messages. | Circumstantial evidence and witnesses show Gulley authored messages. | Authentication satisfied under Rule 901; messages authenticated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Hale v. Henkel, 201 U.S. 43 (U.S. Supreme Court 1906) (subpoenas duces tecum and privacy considerations)
- Okla. Publ’g Co. v. Walling, 327 U.S. 186 (U.S. Supreme Court 1946) (subpoenas must be reasonable and not overbroad)
- See v. City of Seattle, 387 U.S. 541 (U.S. Supreme Court 1967) (limits on subpoenas and discovery)
- Donovan v. Lone Steer, Inc., 464 U.S. 408 (U.S. Supreme Court 1984) (reasonableness and scope of subpoenas)
- Neal v. State, 320 Ark. 489 (Arkansas Supreme Court 1995) (prosecutor’s subpoena power; abuse required for reversal)
- Hamzy v. State, 288 Ark. 561 (Arkansas Supreme Court 1986) (abuse of subpoena power; limits on use)
- Streett v. Stell, 254 Ark. 656 (Arkansas Supreme Court 1973) (prosecutorial duties and investigations)
- Anderson v. State, 357 Ark. 180 (Arkansas Supreme Court 2004) (prosecutor’s subpoena power; review for abuse)
- Vanesch v. State, 343 Ark. 381 (Arkansas Supreme Court 2001) (preservation and scope of objections)
- Gilliland v. State, 361 S.W.3d 279 (Arkansas Supreme Court 2008) (authentication of electronic communications)
- Davis v. State, 350 Ark. 22 (Arkansas Supreme Court 2002) (authentication and admissibility standards)
- McLane Co. v. Weiss, 332 Ark. 284 (Arkansas Supreme Court 1998) (preservation and grounds for objections)