Jones v. State, 384 S.W.3d 22

Appellant Joe Jones was convicted by a Pulaski County jury of commercial burglary with a prior felonies enhancement and sentenced to 30 years.
Jones urged exclusion of his post-arrest statement to police that he was looking for a place to sleep as inadmissible hearsay, seeking Rule 803 exemptions.
The circuit court granted the State’s in limine motion, ruling the statement was unreliable and not cross-examined if admitted.
At trial, witnesses testified to a burglary at Modern Woodmen of America; the owner described the storage room and stolen items; Jones testified he intended no theft and was merely resting.
Jones renewed his directed-verdict motion after his testimony; the jury found him guilty, and the court imposed the 30-year sentence.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the post-arrest statement was admissible under Rule 803	Jones contends the statement fits Rule 803(1) or 803(3) and is admissible to prove intent.	State argues the statement is hearsay and lacks reliability and immediacy to qualify.	No; statement not admissible under Rule 803(1) or (3).
Whether exclusion of the statement violated due process or cross-examination rights	Jones asserts due-process right to confront witnesses and present necessary testimony was impaired.	State argues issue not preserved and any error harmless.	No reversible error; any error was harmless.

Wyles v. State, 357 Ark. 530, 182 S.W.3d 142 (Ark. 2004) (limits on present-future intent interpretations of statements)
Chambers v. Mississippi, 410 U.S. 284 (Sup. Ct. 1973) (due process concerns when reliability and cross-examination are implicated)
Green v. Georgia, 442 U.S. 95 (Sup. Ct. 1979) (due process considerations for admissibility of otherwise hearsay testimony)
Halfacre v. State, 292 Ark. 331, 731 S.W.2d 179 (Ark. 1987) (present-sense-impression requires immediacy)
Barrett v. State, 354 Ark. 187, 119 S.W.3d 485 (Ark. 2003) (immediacy requirement for present-sense-impression)