Holly v. State
2017 Ark. 201
Ark.2017Background
- Defendant Zachary Holly and his wife babysat 6-year-old J.B.; both had a key to the victim’s home but only Amanda was testified to have permission to enter; the side door was left unlocked.
- Holly admitted entering the unlocked side door in the middle of the night, taking J.B. to a vacant house, attempting sexual penetration, tying her pants as a ligature, and confessing; DNA matched his semen to the victim.
- Holly was convicted by jury of capital murder (death sentence), rape and kidnapping (life sentences), and residential burglary (20 years); he appealed raising three principal claims.
- Trial court denied a directed verdict on the residential-burglary charge; Holly argued he was privileged to enter because he had a key and caretaking access.
- Court excluded Holly’s pretrial plea proffer (offer to plead guilty to life instead of facing death) from mitigation, and Holly argued exclusion prevented jury from considering his acceptance of responsibility.
- Holly moved to suppress his custodial confession, claiming he had unequivocally invoked his right to counsel and later was coerced into waiving counsel by police using his wife Amanda as an agent; the court denied suppression after Denno hearings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Holly) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for residential burglary (enter or remain unlawfully) | There was evidence Holly entered without privilege because Crouch’s permission to others did not extend to Holly; verdict supported by confession and facts | Holly argued he had authority/privilege to enter because he and Amanda had keys and frequently cared for the child | Affirmed — viewing evidence in favor of verdict, substantial evidence supported unlawful entry; Crouch did not grant Holly privilege |
| Whether plea proffer (offer to plead guilty in exchange for life) admissible as mitigation (acceptance of responsibility) | Rule 25.4 bars plea discussions; proffer was not relevant mitigation because it indicated avoidance of death rather than true acceptance | Holly argued §5-4-602(4)(B)(i) and Lockett allow any mitigating evidence regardless of usual admissibility rules; Howard and McGehee distinguishable | Affirmed — plea proffer excluded; court held it was not relevant mitigating evidence and Rule 25.4 supports exclusion |
| Denial of suppression of custodial confession — waiver after invocation of counsel | Police: Holly initiated further contact after invoking counsel; valid Miranda warnings and signed waivers on Nov. 23 & 26; statements voluntary | Holly: He unequivocally invoked counsel; police failed to scrupulously honor request and used Amanda as an agent to coerce him into waiving counsel | Affirmed — court found Holly initiated contact, valid waivers, and Amanda was not an agent of police; suppression denial upheld after independent review of totality of circumstances |
| Whether police used Amanda as agent to overcome invocation of counsel | State: No direct control; Amanda acted to clear Holly’s name, not at police direction | Holly: Daily police contact with Amanda and encouragement made her an instrument/agent of police, rendering waiver involuntary | Affirmed — factual findings that Amanda acted independently were not clearly against preponderance; no agency established |
Key Cases Cited
- Holt v. State, 384 S.W.3d 498 (Ark. 2011) (privilege to remain in a residence ends when defendant’s conduct exceeds any granted license)
- Young v. State, 266 S.W.3d 744 (Ark. 2007) (holding defendant not privileged to remain after escalating criminal conduct)
- Howard v. State, 238 S.W.3d 24 (Ark. 2006) (discusses admissibility of plea offers and counsel effectiveness in penalty phase)
- McGehee v. State, 992 S.W.2d 110 (Ark. 1999) (mitigating-evidence admissibility in capital sentencing and limits of evidentiary rules)
- Lockett v. Ohio, 438 U.S. 586 (1978) (sentencer must consider any mitigating evidence proffered by defendant)
- Owens v. Guida, 549 F.3d 399 (6th Cir. 2008) (guilty plea conditioned on avoiding death not persuasive as mitigation of acceptance)
- Jackson v. Denno, 378 U.S. 368 (1964) (defendant entitled to hearing on voluntariness of confession)
- United States v. Sanchez, 614 F.3d 876 (8th Cir. 2010) (private actor may be attributed to government when acting as its instrument or agent)