Magness v. State
2012 Ark. App. 609
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Magness was convicted by a Van Buren County jury on multiple counts including sexual assault in the fourth degree and felon-in-possession of a firearm.
- V.W., a fifteen-year-old, reported sexual relations with Magness; a search warrant was obtained for DNA-related items but cited a misnumbered statute.
- Police recovered DNA-related bed linens, pornographic materials, and a gun in Magness’s residence and cabin; the gun belonged to a third party.
- Magness gave a custodial statement after Miranda rights were advised; he later claimed he was deprived of sleep, food, water, and an attorney request, though the trial court denied suppression.
- A pretrial suppression hearing addressed the warrant defect, the plain-view seizure of materials, and the custodial statement; the court denied suppression motions.
- During trial, witnesses included V.W., her mother, a forensic DNA examiner, and officers who testified about the search and Magness’s statements; the defense moved for directed verdicts and for mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for sexual assault and firearm possession | Magness challenges sufficiency for both counts. | State failed to prove age of V.W. and possession of firearm via constructive possession. | Convictions supported by substantial evidence; constructive possession established. |
| Mistrial denial due to juror contact with officers | Prejudice from juror-officer conversations warrants mistrial. | No prejudice shown; conversations were unrelated to the case. | No abuse of discretion; mistrial denied. |
| Suppression of evidence based on warrant defect and plain-view seizure | Warrant defect and overbroad seizure should exclude items. | Minor error in citation; pornographic materials were in plain view and admissible. | Warrant not defective; plain-view seizure admissible; no reversible error on suppression. |
| Custodial statement admission and voluntariness | Statement not voluntary due to sleep/food deprivation and attorney requests. | Magness asked for an attorney; state failed to show otherwise; admission should be suppressed. | Issue not preserved for review; suppression ruling not overturning. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bridges v. State, 46 Ark.App. 198, 878 S.W.2d 781 (1994) (constructive possession sufficient for contraband when in controlled proximity)
- Franklin v. State, 60 Ark.App. 198, 962 S.W.2d 370 (1998) (constructive possession may be inferred from surrounding circumstances)
- Darrough v. State, 322 Ark. 251, 908 S.W.2d 325 (1995) (possession analysis when contraband found on shared premises)
- Embry v. State, 302 Ark. 608, 792 S.W.2d 318 (1990) (requires linking accused to contraband when premises are jointly occupied)
- Mayo v. State, 70 Ark.App. 453, 20 S.W.3d 419 (2000) (proximity, plain-view, and ownership support possession conviction)
- Nichols v. State, 306 Ark. 417, 815 S.W.2d 382 (1991) (control and knowledge may be inferred to prove possession)
- Moss v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 14, 380 S.W.3d 479 (2011) (de novo review of suppression with weight given to trial court credibility)
- Small v. State, 371 Ark. 244, 264 S.W.3d 512 (2007) (prejudice not presumed; must be shown by movant)
- Washington v. State, 42 Ark.App. 188, 856 S.W.2d 631 (1993) (plain-view doctrine admissibility when officer is lawfully positioned)
- Winbush v. State, 82 Ark.App. 365, 107 S.W.3d 882 (2003) (credibility of witness not controlling in evaluating suppression issues)