Flowers v. State
Decision Date | 05 May 2005 |
Docket Number | No. CR 04-853.,CR 04-853. |
Citation | 208 S.W.3d 113 |
Parties | Curtis Ray FLOWERS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
David P. Price, Magnolia, for appellant.
Mike Beebe, Att'y Gen., by: Suzanne Antley, Ass't Att'y Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
AppellantCurtis Ray Flowers appeals the order of the Columbia County Circuit Court convicting him of capital murder and aggravated robbery.As Appellant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without parole in the Arkansas Department of Correction, our jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark. Sup.Ct. R. 1-2(a)(1).On appeal, Appellant argues that: (1)the State improperly exercised its peremptory challenges; (2)the trial court erred in failing to suppress his custodial confession; (3)the trial court erred in excluding the testimony of an expert witness; (4) the jury's verdict was based on speculation because of confusion over the instructions for capital murder and first-degree murder; (5)the trial court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder; and (6) there was insufficient evidence to support the guilty verdict.We find no error and affirm.
Convenience store owner Jerry Dean Anderson Jr. was found murdered in his store, J.D.'s Quickstop, in McNeil, Arkansas, on April 20, 2003.Police investigating the crime soon developed Appellant as a suspect based on information that he had been at a party earlier in the evening, left during the time the robbery and murder occurred, and then returned and mentioned to some people that he was involved.At the request of officers with the Arkansas State Police, who were investigating the crime, Deputy LeRoy Martin, with the Columbia County Sheriff's Office, went to the home of Appellant's mother on the evening of April 23, 2003, and asked Appellant if he would come with him because some officers wanted to talk to him about the Anderson murder.Appellant willingly went with Martin to the sheriff's office.There, he was interviewed by Special Agent John Bishop and Sergeant Jerry Digman of the Arkansas State Police.Appellant initially denied any involvement in the crime, but eventually confessed.
Appellant was subsequently arrested and charged by felony information with one count of capital murder and one count of aggravated robbery.Prior to trial, Appellant sought to suppress the custodial confession he gave officers implicating himself in the crime.The trial court held a hearing on the motion to suppress on March 1, 2004.Both Bishop and Digman testified that Appellant was advised of his Miranda rights, that he understood those rights, and he signed the Miranda waiver form prior to giving his statement.They also denied threatening Appellant in any way.
Appellant testified that the officers did not read him his rights, refused to allow him to contact his lawyer as he requested and threatened to kill his daughter and arrest his mother if he did not confess to the murder and robbery.Also testifying on behalf of Appellant was Dr. Tom Wright, a psychologist, who opined that based on Appellant's IQ range of 57-62, it was not possible for Appellant to knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily make a waiver of his Miranda rights.At the conclusion of the hearing, the trial court stated that it found the testimony of the investigating officers to be more credible than that of Appellant, thereby denying the motion to suppress.
Another pretrial hearing was held on March 22, 2004.One of the motions considered by the trial court was a motion in limine filed by the State to preventAppellant from presenting during trial the testimony of Dr. Wright that Appellant's confession was not voluntarily given.The State argued that such testimony would invade the province of the jury to determine the credibility of witnesses.The trial court took the matter under advisement, but later granted the State's motion.
Appellant was tried before a Columbia County jury on March 23-31, 2004.Chester Anderson, uncle of the victim, testified that he was working in the store part of the day on April 20.He explained that his nephew had left for a while to go see his newborn grandchild, but returned that evening at approximately 7:30 p.m.Shortly thereafter, Chester left for the evening, but he talked to his nephew again around 8:50 p.m. about an upcoming shift change.Then, at approximately 9:15 p.m., Chester received a call from Pete Polk, an area business owner, that he had gone by the store and found J.D., who had been shot and was lying in a pool of blood.After police removed J.D.'s body from the store, they escorted Chester into the store to ascertain what exactly was missing.Chester testified that the cash from the cash register was missing, except for a few twenties that were under some checks.He also stated that a cigar box containing loose change that was kept under the counter was missing.
Rebecca Berry testified that she was taking her daughter's friend home at approximately 9:00 p.m. on April 20, and when she drove by J.D.'s store, she noticed J.D.'s truck was still at the store.Berry thought it was unusual for him to be at the store at such a late hour.When Berry stopped at an intersection near the store, she noticed a person running and looking back toward the store.She described the person as black, approximately five feet, ten inches tall and weighing approximately 140 pounds.Berry was unsure, however, if the person was a male or a female.She then noticed a car turn into an alleyway between two homes across from J.D.'s. Berry decided to stop at J.D.'s.She knocked on the store's door and after getting no response, opened the door, stepped inside, and immediately saw some blood.Berry ran to one of the homes across the street and asked someone to call 911, because she believed J.D. had been robbed.Berry returned to J.D.'s, went back inside, and saw J.D. lying behind the counter.She then flagged down Pete Polk, who was driving on Front Street, and told him about finding J.D. and asked him to dial 911.
Robert McCallie testified that he and his wife left his grandmother's house at approximately 9:00 p.m. on April 20, and while on their way home noticed lights on at J.D.'s store.They drove by and someone told them that J.D. had been shot.After leaving, McCallie and his wife noticed a bandanna laying in the road near an alleyway.McCallie sent his wife back to J.D.'s to tell the police about what they had found.McCallie's wife returned with Officer Jerry Reich of the Columbia County Sheriff's Department, who collected the bandanna and placed it into an evidence bag.
Lieutenant Truman Young of the Columbia County Sheriff's Office testified that he was the lead investigator in the murder investigation.Young testified about the crime scene as he found it on the evening of April 20.He indicated that the cash register drawer was open and that the money holders were lifted upward.Young also stated that the next morning, Deputy Martin contacted him and asked him to come to McNeil.When he arrived in McNeil, Young was told that someone had discovered part of a wallet belonging to J.D., underneath a viaduct on U.S. Highway 79, approximately one-half mile from J.D.'s store.Young later found a Southwestern Bell calling card and a Sears card with J.D.'s name on them in the same area.
Stephen Erickson, medical examiner with the Arkansas State Crime Lab, testified that he performed an autopsy on J.D. and determined that he died as a result of three gunshot wounds.The first wound was a near-contact wound over the left, front temple.The second gunshot wound was to the left side of the neck, and a third wound was just above the elbow on the left arm.
Chantelle Bequette-Taylor, a criminalist with the State Crime Lab, testified that she performed trace-analysis tests on the bandanna recovered near J.D.'s store and discovered a single hair of "Negroid" origin.She compared the hair to some samples received in the case and sent it for DNA testing.According to Bequette-Taylor, the hair recovered from the bandanna was microscopically similar to the hair of Appellant.1
Special Agent Bishop testified about his involvement in the investigation of the Anderson murder.He explained that several persons provided statements that Appellant was involved in the murder.One of those persons was Natasha Jones, Appellant's girlfriend.2After initially denying any knowledge regarding Anderson's murder, Jones told Bishop that she had been with Appellant at a party in Cotton Belt when she noticed that he was gone.According to Jones, when Appellant returned, he told her that he had been to McNeil, met up with Craig Curry and his wife, and that he and Curry robbed J.D.'s, taking some cigarettes, a cigar box containing loose change, and J.D.'s wallet.He also told Jones that Curry shot J.D. and that they had thrown J.D.'s wallet out of the car near the viaduct.Jones also told the officers that Curry and Appellant were wearing head scarves over their mouths while robbing the store.
Bishop also read into evidence the statement given by Appellant admitting his involvement in the crimes.In that statement, Appellant claimed that he was in McNeil on April 20, when Curry and his wife flagged him down and asked him to ride around with them.While driving around, Curry stated that he was going to rob J.D.'s Quickstop and asked Appellant to go with him.Curry's wife, who was driving, dropped the two men near the store.Curry put on a mask and the two men entered the store.Curry demanded money and J.D. gave him the cash from the register.According to Appellant, he then left the store and once outside, he heard two gunshots.Curry's wife picked the two men up, and drove the trio to a bridge where Curry threw Mr. Anderson's wallet out the window.
At the close of the State's...
Get this document and AI-powered insights with a free trial of vLex and Vincent AI
Get Started for FreeStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting

Start Your 7-day Trial
-
Joyner v. State
...Arkansas Rule of Evidence 702. See Flowers v. State , 373 Ark. 127, 133, 282 S.W.3d 767, 772 (2008) (quoting Flowers v. State , 362 Ark. 193, 210, 208 S.W.3d 113, 127 (2005) ). The decision of a circuit court to admit or exclude expert testimony is reviewed on an abuse of discretion standar......
-
Vance v. State
...expert testimony would have, among other things, usurped the jury's role as trier of fact and weigher of credibility. Flowers v. State, 362 Ark. 193, 208 S.W.3d 113 (2005). Appellant incorrectly asserts in his reply brief that Flowers did not involve proffered expert testimony on the relati......
-
Clark v. State
...especially that of the accused, since he or she is the person most interested in the outcome of the proceedings. Flowers v. State, 362 Ark. 193, 208 S.W.3d 113 (2005). If a police officer makes a false promise that misleads the person in custody, and the person in custody gives a confession......
-
Mackool v. State
...of the evidence that a custodial statement was given voluntarily and was knowingly and intelligently made. Flowers v. State, 362 Ark. 193, 208 S.W.3d 113 (2005). In order to determine whether a waiver of Miranda rights is voluntary, knowing, and intelligent, this court looks to see if the s......