Title: Kennedy v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Heath KENNEDY v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 95-711                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered June 3, 1996


1.   Criminal law -- accomplice liability. -- A defendant may
     properly be found guilty not only of his own conduct, but also
     of the conduct of his accomplice; when two or more persons
     assist one another in the commission of a crime, each is an
     accomplice and criminally liable for the conduct of both;
     there is no distinction between principals on the one hand and
     accomplices on the other insofar as criminal liability is
     concerned.

2.   Evidence -- evidence against appellant properly considered --
     no error found. -- In view of the testimony showing that
     appellant participated in the planning of the robbery and
     murder, including his purchase of ammunition for the pistol
     used by his accomplice, his presence at the scene during the
     commission of the crime, his participation in attempting to
     dispose of the VCR after the shooting, and his admission to a
     friend of having committed the crime, it was not error to
     allow the jury to consider the evidence against appellant.

3.   Criminal law -- voluntariness of custodial confessions --
     burden of proof. -- The State has the burden of proving by a
     preponderance of the evidence that a custodial confession or
     inculpatory statement was given voluntarily and was knowingly
     and intelligently made.

4.   Criminal law -- validity of criminal defendant's waiver of
     right to remain silent -- components considered. --
     Consideration of the validity of a criminal defendant's waiver
     of the right to remain silent and the right to counsel prior
     to giving an inculpatory statement may be divided into two
     components: the first component is the voluntariness of the
     waiver, and it concerns whether the accused has made a free
     choice, uncoerced by the police, to waive his rights; the
     second component involves whether the defendant made the
     waiver knowingly and intelligently, and the inquiry then
     focuses on determining if the waiver was made with a full
     awareness of both the nature of the right being abandoned and
     the consequences of the decision to abandon it; the court must
     also decide if the confession or inculpatory statement, given
     after a waiver of rights has occurred, was itself voluntarily
     made.  

5.   Criminal law -- voluntariness of confessions -- factors on
     review. -- When reviewing the voluntariness of confessions,
     the appellate court makes an independent determination based
     on the totality of the circumstances and reverses the trial
     court only if its decision was clearly erroneous; in
     determining whether a confession was voluntary, the appellate
     court considers the following factors: the age, education, and
     intelligence of the accused; the lack of advice concerning his
     constitutional rights; the length of detention; the repeated
     and prolonged nature of questioning; or the use of physical
     punishment; two other pertinent factors in considering the
     totality of the circumstances are the statements made by the
     interrogating officer and the vulnerability of the defendant. 

6.   Criminal law -- voluntariness of confession -- youth alone
     insufficient reason to exclude confession. -- Although youth
     is a factor, it alone is not a sufficient reason to exclude a
     confession.  

7.   Criminal law -- custodial confession voluntary -- trial court
     did not err in admitting evidence of appellant's statement. --
     Where there was no question that appellant was of age and had
     waived his rights after being informed that the investigation
     was about the homicide; where appellant was in the eleventh
     grade and could read and write; where there was no suggestion
     that appellant did not understand his situation; where there
     were no threats of violence or promises of leniency; where
     appellant had been asked about possession of a pistol on the
     day before he went in for questioning and thus shouldn't have
     been too surprised when that topic arose; where he was
     questioned for less than two hours; where there was no
     suggestion that he asked to be represented by an attorney; and
     where appellant's inculpatory statement was made at his own
     instance after it appeared that his interview at the police
     station would end with his denials, the statement was found to
     be voluntary; the totality of the circumstances surrounding
     the taking of the confession was such that the trial court
     properly admitted evidence of the statement; the trial court
     was entitled to rely on the testimony of the detective that
     The statement was volunteered without prompting.  
     Appeal from Union Circuit Court; John M. Graves, Judge;
affirmed.
     Didi Sallings, Executive Director, Arkansas Public Defender
Commission, by:  Elizabeth S. Johnston, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Clint Miller, Deputy Att'y
Gen., Sr. Appellate Advocate for appellee.

     David Newbern, Justice.June 3, 1996   *ADVREP*SC2*


                                   CR95-711
HEATH KENNEDY                      Opinion Delivered:

          Appellant                Appeal from Union Circuit
                                   Court (CR-94-55)
     v.
                                   Honorable John M. Graves,
STATE OF ARKANSAS                  Circuit Judge

          Appellee                 Affirmed





                     David Newbern, Justice.


     Heath Kennedy stands convicted of capital murder and sentenced
to life imprisonment without parole.  He argues that the evidence
was insufficient to have been permitted to go to the jury, thus his
motion for directed verdict should have been granted.  He also
contends a statement given by him to the police should have been
suppressed.  We affirm the conviction because the evidence was not
only sufficient but overwhelming and the State has shown that the
statement was knowingly and voluntarily given.
     Testimony at the trial revealed these undisputed facts.  On
March 5, 1994, Heath Kennedy, age 18, and Wade Miller, age 16,
entered the Subway Sandwich Shop in El Dorado.  Mr. Miller produced
a .25 caliber pistol and pointed it at the cashier, who was the
only employee in the store.  The cash register was emptied and the
cashier, 21 year old Leona Cameron, was shot twice in the head. 
The shooting was done by Mr. Miller who had gone over the counter
and taken Ms. Cameron to the storage area in the rear of the store. 
     After killing Ms. Cameron, Mr. Miller called Mr. Kennedy to
the rear of the store.  He was having trouble getting the video
tape out of the video cassette recorder (VCR) which was connected
to the store security camera.  The two young men left the store
with the VCR which they dumped in a "mud hole" at Calion.  Although
the VCR and the tape it contained had been under water for days,
still pictures taken from the tape after enhancement by the FBI
clearly showed the young men in the store at 9:52 p.m. on the night
of the murder.

                 1. Sufficiency of the evidence
     Arkansas Code Ann.  5-10-101 (Repl. 1993) provides in part:

     (a) A person commits capital murder if:
     (1) Acting alone or with one (1) or more other persons,
     he commits or attempts to commit ... robbery, ... and in
     the course of and in furtherance of the felony, or in
     immediate flight therefrom, he or an accomplice causes
     the death of any person under circumstances manifesting
     extreme indifference to the value of human life; or
                               ***
     (4) With the premeditated and deliberated purpose of
     causing the death of another person, he causes the death
     of any person; 
                               ***
     (b) It is an affirmative defense to any prosecution under
     subdivision (a)(1) of this section for an offense in
     which the defendant was not the only participant that the
     defendant did not commit the homicidal act or in any way
     solicit, command, induce, procure, counsel, or aid in its
     commission.

     As Mr. Kennedy did not do the shooting, his argument is that
his responsibility could only be that of an accomplice.  Arkansas
Code Ann.  5-2-403(a) (Repl. 1993) provides:
 
          A person is an accomplice of another person in the
     commission of an offense if, with the purpose of promoting or
     facilitating the commission of an offense, he:
          (1) Solicits, advises, encourages, or coerces the other
     person in planning or committing it; or 
          (2) Aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid the other
     person in planning or committing it; or
          (3) Having a legal duty to prevent the commission of the
     offense, fails to make proper effort to do so.

     In the statement he gave to the El Dorado police, Mr. Kennedy
said he did not know Mr. Miller had the pistol in his possession
when they entered the store and that he protested strongly when Mr.
Miller pulled it out and pointed it at Ms. Cameron.  There is,
however, strong evidence that Mr. Kennedy did know the gun would be
used and that he helped plan and execute the robbery and murder and
thus was an accomplice.
     Ricky Church testified he saw Mr. Kennedy give the gun to Wade
Miller, and was with Mr. Kennedy when he attempted to purchase
ammunition for the gun.  Darla Chance, a firearms dealer, stated
that Mr. Kennedy purchased a magazine for the pistol several months
prior to the murder.  She also corroborated the testimony of Mr.
Church that Mr. Kennedy attempted to purchase ammunition from her
on March 4, 1994, the day before the murder.  As he was under 21,
he was not allowed to purchase the ammunition.
     David Crawford testified that Mr. Kennedy asked him to
purchase a box of .25 caliber ammunition.  He stated that Mr.
Kennedy drove him to Wal-Mart where he bought the shells for Mr.
Kennedy the day before the shooting.
     John Bennefield testified he saw Mr. Miller and Mr. Kennedy
with the pistol on the evening of the murder.  He stated that he
saw Mr. Miller "wiping down shells with a rag in his lap." 
According to Mr. Bennefield, when he asked them what they were
going to do he was told, "Don't worry about it."  
     Jason Jackson told the jury he saw Mr. Kennedy and Mr. Miller
about 8:00 p.m. on the night of the murder.  According to his
testimony, they brought up the idea of robbing a store and asked
him if he would like to be the getaway driver for them.  Mr.
Jackson testified they told him they got the idea from the movie,
Menace II Society, which, in the opening scene, depicts the robbery
of a store, the killing of the cashier, and the removal of the
videotape.  Mr. Jackson testified the two told him they were going
to rob the Subway Sandwich Shop because it would not be very
crowded.  
     Mr. Jackson further testified that he saw Mr. Kennedy the day
after the murder and that Mr. Kennedy showed him a newspaper
reporting the crime and told him that he and Wade Miller had done
it.  Mr. Kennedy told him they went to the store but people were
there.  When they returned about ten minutes later, Wade pulled his
gun, and demanded the money.  Mr. Jackson stated that Mr. Kennedy
said he grabbed the money while Miller took the young woman to the
back.  Mr. Kennedy told Jason that he heard three shots, then,
after the fourth shot, he heard the victim scream "Oh God."  He
then went to the back room and helped get the VCR.
     A defendant may properly be found guilty not only of his own
conduct, but also the conduct of his accomplice.  Purifoy v. State,
307 Ark. 482,