Opinion ID: 1788992
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Arkansas Confession

Text: Appellant's next point on appeal is that the trial court erred by denying his motion to suppress the confession he made while in police custody in Arkansas. Appellant argues that based on the district court's finding of ineffective assistance of counsel, it was erroneous to allow the confession he gave while deprived of counsel to be introduced into evidence against him in his new trial. While we accept the district court's ruling as tantamount to a ruling that the statement was inadmissible, we conclude that any error resulting from the admission of the statement amounts to mere harmless error. We recognize that while some constitutional rights are so fundamental that their violation can never be deemed harmless error, others are subject to the harmless-error analysis. Jones v. State, 336 Ark. 191, 984 S.W.2d 432 (1999) (quoting Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18, 87 S.Ct. 824, 17 L.Ed.2d 705 (1967)). To conclude that a constitutional error is harmless and does not mandate reversal, this court must conclude beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. Id.; see Schalski v. State, 322 Ark. 63, 907 S.W.2d 693(1995); Allen v. State, 310 Ark. 384, 838 S.W.2d 346 (1992). Application of the Chapman analysis requires that we excise the confession and determine whether the remaining evidence shows beyond a reasonable doubt that the error did not contribute to the verdict. Even if the trial court had granted Appellant's motion to suppress his Arkansas confession, there was ample evidence properly introduced at trial to sustain his conviction. This court has previously held that introduction of an involuntary statement was not prejudicial error when the same or similar evidence was otherwise properly admitted. Martin v. State, 328 Ark. 420, 944 S.W.2d 512, rev'd on other grounds, State v. Bell, 329 Ark. 422, 948 S.W.2d 557 (1997). In the present matter, the State introduced not only Appellant's Mississippi confession, but also the testimony of Appellant's codefendant implicating him in the crime, as well as physical evidence recovered at the scene of Appellant's arrest. While Mississippi authorities were booking Appellant, he made several spontaneous and incriminating statements. Appellant covered his face and stated: I can't believe we did this. He then asked the booking officer what the sentence was in Arkansas for armed robbery. Appellant also commented, Hell, we did it and we'll have to live with it. The officer, who had already advised Appellant of his Miranda rights, again advised him to remain quiet and talk to a lawyer. Ignoring this advice, Appellant continued to incriminate himself and told the officer that he had a drug problem and that was the reason that he had robbed the pharmacy. The officer made note of Appellant's comments on the offense report which was introduced into evidence during the officer's testimony at the trial. Additionally, two pharmacy employees testified that there were two robbers, one armed with a sawed-off shotgun and the other armed with a handgun. They further testified that the robbers wore rubber presidential masks and demanded that a variety of controlled narcotics be placed in the white garbage bags they carried. The first officer to arrive at the scene testified that when he pulled up, one of the suspects was walking from across the road back to the car. Mississippi authorities discovered two white garbage bags containing a sawed-off shotgun, a .22 caliber handgun, two rubber presidential masks, and a variety of narcotics and other drugs in a ditch across from where Appellant's car had run off the road. Also found in the trash bags were numerous checks made payable to the pharmacy. Finally, Appellant's codefendant testified at trial that the pair had robbed the pharmacy, providing specific details that corroborated the other witnesses' testimony. There was ample evidence, therefore, to sustain Appellant's conviction even without the introduction of the Arkansas confession. This court has consistently held that under the Chapman harmless error rule, when evidence of guilt is overwhelming, and the error slight, we can declare the error to be harmless. Baker v. State, 334 Ark. 330, 974 S.W.2d 474 (1998) (holding that introduction of testimony regarding the defendant's state of mind was harmless error in light of other evidence introduced at trial); Hicks v. State, 327 Ark. 652, 941 S.W.2d 387 (1997) (holding that admission of additional drug paraphernalia was harmless error where there was overwhelming evidence to support the conviction); Abdullah v. State, 301 Ark. 235, 783 S.W.2d 58 (1990) (holding that the trial court's denial of defendant's motion to suppress evidence was harmless error in light of other overwhelming evidence of guilt). Considering the ample evidence that was properly introduced against him, we hold that any error resulting from the introduction of Appellant's statement was harmless, and we affirm the conviction.