Sweet v. State
2011 Ark. 20
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Appellant David Sweet was convicted by a Crawford County jury of aggravated robbery and kidnapping, each Class Y felonies, and sentenced to two consecutive life terms.
- Victim Bitzelberger was assaulted at a Mulberry medical clinic on April 29, 2009, duct-taped, robbed of money, and later escaped to a nearby pharmacy for help.
- Appellant confessed to police in a patrol-car statement and provided a videotaped confession at the jail; prior to trial, motions to suppress custodial statements and to exclude identification materials were heard.
- Trial evidence included a surveillance video from a nearby pharmacy and a sequence of photographic identifications; Bitzelberger identified Sweet both in photos and in court.
- The circuit court found the pretrial photographic identification not unduly suggestive and admitted the videotape and photos; it also ruled Sweet’s custodial waiver voluntary.
- On appeal, Sweet challenged sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of evidence, suppression of custodial statements, the identifications, a request for mistrial, and the potential for lesser-included offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated robbery and kidnapping | Sweet contends mental retardation precluded the Culpable State; no weapon shown; no force evidence. | State failed to prove purposeful mens rea and proper elements due to absence of knife and injuries. | Evidence supports aggrav ROB and kidnapping; knife and coercive acts establish elements. |
| Admissibility of videotape and photographs | Video and photos were cumulative and inflammatory. | Video corroborates testimony; photographs illustrate injuries and state of dress and are admissible. | Circuit court did not abuse discretion; videotape and photos were probative and not unduly inflammatory. |
| Custodial statements suppression | Statement in patrol car should be suppressed due to coercion/no knowing waiver; jail statement lacking proper basis. | Waiver voluntary; no coercion; spontaneous statements admissible. | Waiver voluntary under totality of circumstances; patrol-car statement admissible; jail statement properly waived. |
| Photographic identification | Pretrial lineup tainted in-court identification; identification should be suppressed. | In-court identification not preserved due to failure to object contemporaneously to in-court ID. | Argument procedurally barred; no reversible error on pretrial ID challenge due to lack of contemporaneous objection to in-court ID. |
| Mistrial | Dr. Deyoub’s reference to prior charges prejudiced the jury; mistrial warranted. | Objection timely; cure by court; no mistrial required. | No error; untimely mistrial motion; court properly denied. |
Key Cases Cited
- Skiver v. State, 983 S.W.2d 931 (Ark. 1999) (knife as deadly weapon commonly recognized)
- Wilson v. State, 669 S.W.2d 889 (Ark. 1984) (deadly weapon definitions and use)
- Isom v. State, 148 S.W.3d 257 (Ark. 2004) (no rational basis to submit ordinary robbery)
- Broum v. State, 60 S.W.3d 422 (Ark. 2001) (robbery as lesser-included offense under aggravated robbery)
- Davis v. State, 232 S.W.3d 476 (Ark. 2006) (false imprisonment as not lesser-included to kidnapping)
- Pinell v. State, 219 S.W.3d 168 (Ark. 2005) (preservation requirements for sufficiency challenges)
- Grillot v. State, 107 S.W.3d 136 (Ark. 2003) (abuse of discretion in submitting lesser-included offenses)
- Ellis v. State, 222 S.W.3d 192 (Ark. 2006) (contemporaneous objection needed to preserve out-of-court ID challenge)
- Fairchild v. State, 76 S.W.3d 884 (Ark. 2002) (spontaneous statements admissible even if not Miranda warned)
- Flanagan v. State, 243 S.W.3d 866 (Ark. 2006) (totality-of-circumstances standard for voluntariness of waiver)