Vance v. State
2011 Ark. 243
Ark.2011Background
- Criminal convictions in Pulaski County: capital murder, residential burglary, theft of property, and rape based on a single incident in Little Rock on Oct 20, 2008; victim Anne Pressly died Oct 25, 2008 from blunt-force injuries and assaults.
- DNA from crime scene linked to Vance; police identified him after searching Marianna, Arkansas, arriving Nov 25, 2008 with multi-agency team.
- Vance moved to suppress saliva sample and four statements, claiming unlawful seizure and involuntary statements; suppression hearing held over three days.
- Circuit court denied suppression on state and federal grounds; issues also included admission of other-crimes evidence and expert testimony, and prosecutorial conduct.
- Trial proceeded with jury verdicts resolving liability and sentencing; the court imposed life imprisonment without parole rather than death; this appeal followed under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2(a)(2).
- Clerical errors were noted in the judgment and commitment order regarding dates and rape sentence, with the opinion concluding the judgment should control and can be corrected nunc pro tunc if needed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Suppression of saliva sample and initial statements | Vance argues dehydration of seizure and taint from illegal seizure. | Vance contends officers seized him at his residence and coerced statements. | Saliva and initial statement upheld; no clear seizure under totality of circumstances. |
| Admission of Marianna crimes evidence (Rule 404(b)) | State contends evidence of Marianna rape/theft is relevant to intent/scheme. | Vance argues dissimilarities render evidence unfairly prejudicial. | Admissible under Rule 404(b) for modus operandi, intent, and plan; Rule 403 balance not abused. |
| Expert testimony on limited mental capacity and suggestibility | Defense sought to present evidence that low IQ and cognitive impairment affect confessions. | Experts necessary to explain reliability of confessions. | Circuit court did not abuse discretion; Rule 702 exclusion affirmed; testimony properly excluded. |
| Closing argument misconduct | Prosecutor urged jurors to place themselves in victim’s position (golden-rule). | Objection raised; defendant argues mistrial warranted. | No reversible error; contemporaneous objections were lacking for mistrial; admonitions given. |
| Prison garb and mistrial request | Two jurors saw Appellant in shackles and prison garb; request for mistrial pending. | Actions brief; no mistrial requested; sighting brief and inadvertent. | Not preserved; even if considered, not reversible; no sua sponte mistrial warranted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Adams v. State, 229 Ark. 777 (1958) (closing-argument constraints for reversible error)
- Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 (2002) (golden-rule argument review; third Wicks exception rejected)
- Flowers v. State, 362 Ark. 193 (2005) ( Rule 702 and expert testimony on credibility)
- Moran v. Devlin, 475 U.S. 412 (1986) (Miranda rights and counsel access considerations)
- Moulton v. Moran, 474 U.S. 159 (1985) (counsel access and voir dire relevance)
- Osburn v. State, 2009 Ark. 390 (2009) (Rule 404(b) admissibility for prior crimes; intent/motive)
- Creed v. State, 372 Ark. 221 (2008) (Rule 404(b) admissibility; similar-acts analysis)
- Sasser v. State, 321 Ark. 438 (1995) (similarity standard for 404(b) evidence)
- Shields v. State, 348 Ark. 7 (2002) (seizure analysis under Rule 2.3; Mendenhall framework)
- Flanagan v. State, 368 Ark. 143 (2006) (de novo review for suppression rulings)