595 S.W.3d 391
Ark. Ct. App.2020Background
- Reed was charged with armed robbery of Express RX Pharmacy; a partial latent fingerprint from a green basket at the scene matched Reed’s right middle finger and surveillance video recorded the robbery.
- The robbery occurred about 6:52 p.m. on July 6, 2016; the robber was described as a white male ~5'8" with a black bandana.
- Reed offered an alibi: he was buying tires at Tire Market (16717 MacArthur Dr., North Little Rock) and left around 6:40 p.m.; the receipt is time-stamped 6:40 and the owner testified Reed was leaving at about 6:40–a little after.
- Reed proffered Google Maps printouts showing a route from the tire shop to the pharmacy as 12.5 miles and an estimated drive time of 14–18 minutes, and asked the court to judicially notice those facts under Ark. R. Evid. 201.
- The circuit court judicially noticed the distance (12.5 miles) but refused to instruct the jury to accept the Google estimated drive time (14–18 minutes) as conclusive.
- Reed appealed, arguing the court abused its discretion by refusing to judicially notice the Google Maps estimated driving time and instruct the jury accordingly.
Issues
| Issue | Reed's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the court should judicially notice Google Maps’ estimated driving time between the alibi location and the crime scene | Google Maps’ estimate (14–18 min) is an adjudicative fact capable of accurate, ready determination and should be instructed as conclusive | Google’s estimated drive time is disputable, unsupported as to methodology/accuracy, and not reliably verifiable; court properly declined to notice it | Court affirmed: distance may be noticed, but estimated driving time may be reasonably disputed and need not be judicially noticed in criminal case |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. State, 2019 Ark. 110, 571 S.W.3d 469 (addresses standard of review for evidentiary rulings)
- Pokatilov v. State, 2017 Ark. 264, 526 S.W.3d 849 (addresses standard of review for jury instructions)
- Whitlock v. Smith, 297 Ark. 399, 762 S.W.2d 782 (court must instruct jury on applicable law)
- Worsham v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 702, 537 S.W.3d 789 (jury may draw on common sense and experience)
- United States v. Burroughs, 810 F.3d 833 (D.C. Cir. 2016) (treated Google Maps as reliable for identifying location/distance)
- McCormack v. Hiedeman, 694 F.3d 1004 (9th Cir. 2012) (took judicial notice of Google Maps distance)
- United States v. Perea-Rey, 680 F.3d 1179 (9th Cir. 2012) (relied on Google map/satellite to determine general location/distance)
- United States v. Proch, 637 F.3d 1262 (11th Cir. 2011) (judicial notice of map)
- Rindfleisch v. Gentiva Health Sys., Inc., 752 F. Supp. 2d 246 (E.D.N.Y. 2010) (used Google Maps’ estimated driving time in discussion)
- Jackson v. Allstate Ins. Co., 785 F.3d 1193 (8th Cir. 2015) (affirmed district court’s refusal to judicially notice Google driving-time accuracy)
- Cobb Theatres III, LLC v. AMC Entm’t Holdings, Inc., 101 F. Supp. 3d 1319 (N.D. Ga. 2015) (expressed skepticism about Google Maps driving-time accuracy)