Tennant v. State
439 S.W.3d 61
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Tennant was convicted in Benton County Circuit Court of possession of drug paraphernalia, a Class D felony.
- Counsel filed a no-merit brief under Rule 4-3(k) arguing the appeal is wholly frivolous; the brief included an abstract, addendum, and argument but omitted a complete treatment of one adverse ruling.
- The court found a potentially non-frivolous issue related to suppression/Miranda implications from statements made at the scene and ordered re-briefing.
- At the scene, police observed paraphernalia in the car, arrested all occupants for constructive possession, and Tennant admitted prior to Miranda warnings that they planned to get high.
- During cross-examination, Tennant sought to strike testimony about spontaneous statements made at the scene; the court denied the motion.
- The court ordered rebriefing and did not address Tennant’s pro se points due to the briefing requirement.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the adverse ruling on suppressing statements was meritorious | Tennant | Tennant’s counsel | Not decided; issue identified for potential merit and ordered rebriefing |
| Whether Tennant’s statements were Miranda-triggered interrogation | Tennant | State | Potential merit; Hall v. State cited; issue to be addressed in rebriefing |
Key Cases Cited
- Hall v. State, 361 Ark. 379 (Ark. 2005) (Miranda interrogation includes words/actions reasonably likely to elicit incriminating response)
- Campbell v. State, 74 Ark.App. 277 (Ark. App. 2001) (duty to examine record for non-frivolous issues)
- Boen v. State, 336 S.W.3d 883 (Ark. App. 2009) (full examination required in no-merit appeal)