571 S.W.3d 476
Ark.2019Background
- Quenton King was convicted of capital murder for the shooting death of his pregnant girlfriend, Megan Price; jury sentenced him to life without parole.
- After Price's body was found, King spoke by phone with Detective Clint O'Kelley (via a third party's phone); that call was secretly recorded by the third party (David Kincade), and the recording captured King admitting a relationship with Price and that she may have been pregnant with his child.
- Kincade separately told police that King confessed to him that he killed Price, described disabling home surveillance cameras, and said King left via the back door and was driven to Price's house.
- Based on an affidavit by Detective O'Kelley (which identified Kincade as "Witness 1" without detailing his veracity), a warrant was issued and police seized King's DVR and photos; the DVR showed the back-camera channel stopped recording June 26 and resumed June 29.
- King moved to suppress the recorded phone call and the evidence seized; the court denied both motions and admitted testimony under Rule 803(3) that Price intended to spend the weekend with King.
- On appeal King challenged (1) admissibility of the secretly recorded call, (2) sufficiency of the affidavit for the search warrant (arguing lack of basis for Witness 1's veracity), and (3) admission of hearsay about Price's intent (Confrontation Clause). The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (King) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of secretly recorded phone call (Ark. Code § 5-60-120) | Recording lawful to admit because private-party recording unlawfulness does not bar admissibility; exclusionary rule restrains government, not private actors | Recording was intercepted illegally and should be excluded under state law and 18 U.S.C. § 2515 | Court affirmed admission; followed Elliott: unlawful private recording does not automatically render it inadmissible; federal § 2515 argument not preserved for appeal |
| Sufficiency of affidavit for search warrant (probable cause; informant veracity) | Affidavit, read as whole, provided substantial basis for probable cause (Victim found shot, Facebook post naming King, Witness 1's confession and corroborating details) | Affidavit failed to show reliability/basis of knowledge for Witness 1 and omitted material facts; warrant therefore invalid | Court affirmed denial of suppression: although affidavit lacked particularized indicia of informant veracity, totality of circumstances supported probable cause; Franks challenge not preserved |
| Admission of victim's statement of intent (Ark. R. Evid. 803(3); Confrontation Clause) | Statements of intent to do something in the future fit hearsay exception for intent and are admissible; do not violate Confrontation Clause | Admission violated Confrontation Clause because declarant unavailable for cross-examination | Court affirmed admission under Rule 803(3) and rejected Confrontation Clause challenge |
Key Cases Cited
- Elliott v. State, 335 Ark. 387, 984 S.W.2d 362 (1998) (private-party unlawful recording does not automatically render recording inadmissible)
- Illinois v. Gates, 462 U.S. 213 (1983) (totality-of-the-circumstances test for probable cause from informant tips)
- Brenk v. State, 311 Ark. 579, 847 S.W.2d 1 (1993) (issuing judge makes practical common-sense probable-cause decision)
- Wagner v. State, 2010 Ark. 389 (2010) (affidavit must provide substantial basis for finding of reasonable cause)
- Franks v. Delaware, 438 U.S. 154 (1978) (entitles defendant to hearing if substantial showing that affidavit contained deliberate or reckless falsehoods that were necessary to probable cause)
- Abernathy v. State, 265 Ark. 218, 577 S.W.2d 591 (1979) (statements of intent admissible under hearsay exception)
- Nicholson v. State, 319 Ark. 566, 892 S.W.2d 507 (1995) (hearsay statements about a victim's future intent admissible)
- Hicks v. State, 327 Ark. 652, 941 S.W.2d 387 (1997) (issues not raised below are not preserved for appeal)
- United States v. Leon, 468 U.S. 897 (1984) (good-faith exception to exclusionary rule)