Opinion ID: 2453032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Failure to Suppress the Statement

Text: The facts leading up to McFarland's statement are these. On August 27, 1996, he was taken into custody in Utah, solely on Utah chargeshot checks, burglary, and theft of a vehicle. On August 30, 1996, Arkansas authorities got a phone tip from Candace Campbell, who was in the juvenile facility in Utah, that McFarland and others were involved in Melbourne's murder. On September 3, 1996, they confirmed the murder when they found Melbourne's body in Omaha. On September 5, 1996, the Arkansas law enforcement officers flew to Utah and interviewed McFarland. As soon as he asked for an attorney, they stopped questioning him. A few hours later, McFarland initiated the questioning himself, asking if he could speak with Detective Arnold. At both interviews, he signed a valid rights form. Both interviews were recorded, and there is no evidence that his statements were anything but voluntary. The tape of the second interview was read to the jury at trial and contained his confession of the crime. McFarland argues now, as he did before the trial court, that his statement should be suppressed because he was not promptly taken before a judge in Utah. He argues that at the time he was questioned, he had been confined in the juvenile facility in Utah for nine days without being brought before a judge and that because of this delay, he did not have counsel. Had he had appointed counsel, he contends that he would not have confessed to the Arkansas police officers. In denying his suppression motion, the trial court observed that McFarland was sufficiently advised of his rights, made a knowing waiver of those rights, and initiated the second interview with police officers. Furthermore, the trial court emphasized that there was nothing in the record to show when McFarland was brought before a judge on the Utah charges and what actions transpired. Without a sufficient record on this point, the trial court stated that it could make no decision regarding it. We agree with the trial court. When an accused is in custody, any statement made is presumed involuntary, and the burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of the evidence (1) voluntariness, and (2) that the statement was knowingly and intelligently made. Smith v. State, 334 Ark. 190, 974 S.W.2d 427 (1998). McFarland cites his age, tenth-grade education, lack of family in Utah, and emotional mental state as factors militating against a knowing waiver of Miranda rights and a voluntary statement. In such cases, we look to the totality of the circumstances. See Clay v. State, 318 Ark. 122, 883 S.W.2d 822 (1994). In the instant case, we are convinced that McFarland, who was Mirandized twice, fully understood his rights and knowingly waived them. Indeed, at one point he exercised his right to counsel. We conclude that the State met its burden. Furthermore, after asking for counsel in the first interview, McFarland initiated contact with the police officers, which led to his confession. Under these circumstances, the United States Supreme Court as well as this court have held that the confession is voluntary. See Michigan v. Jackson, 475 U.S. 625, 106 S.Ct. 1404, 89 L.Ed.2d 631 (1986); Edwards v. Arizona, 451 U.S. 477, 101 S.Ct. 1880, 68 L.Ed.2d 378 (1981); Willett v. State, 322 Ark. 613, 911 S.W.2d 937 (1995). It is the appellant's burden to produce a record exhibiting prejudicial error. See McGhee v. State, 330 Ark. 38, 954 S.W.2d 206 (1997); Edwards v. State, 321 Ark. 610, 906 S.W.2d 310 (1995). And we will not consider an argument where the appellant presents no citation to authority, makes no convincing argument in support of his allegation of error, and it is not apparent without further research that the argument is well-taken. See Bailey v. State, 334 Ark. 43, 972 S.W.2d 239 (1998); Williams v. State, 325 Ark. 432, 930 S.W.2d 297 (1996). In this case, McFarland failed to put forth any evidence that his constitutional rights were violated in Utah. Indeed, Campbell testified that she and McFarland were both taken before a judge in Utah a couple of days after their arrest. It would have been a simple matter for defense counsel to obtain some kind of official record of his appearance, or lack thereof, before a judicial officer. Moreover, the United States Supreme Court has made it clear that it is only when there is a working arrangement or collaboration between two separate jurisdictions, whether federal and state or state and sister state, to perpetuate abuses such as delay in the appointment of counsel which led to a confession that suppression may be appropriate. See Anderson v. United States, 318 U.S. 350, 63 S.Ct. 599, 87 L.Ed. 829 (1943); United States v. Rose, 526 F.2d 745 (8 th Cir.1975), cert. denied, 425 U.S. 905, 96 S.Ct. 1497, 47 L.Ed.2d 755 (1976). The case of Branscomb v. State, 299 Ark. 482, 774 S.W.2d 426 (1989) is instructive on this point. In Branscomb , a defendant claimed there was unnecessary delay in taking him before a magistrate in Chicago, Illinois, which had an impact on his subsequent confession in Lee County. Branscomb was arrested there on September 27, 1986, and remained incarcerated until December 11, 1986, when a Lee County deputy sheriff brought him back to Arkansas. Except for the defendant's own testimony, the trial court had no information about what happened in Chicago between those dates. The trial court refused to consider the delay after his arrest in Chicago and his transportation to Arkansas, noting that it had no idea what caused the delay in Chicago. In reviewing the decision, we concluded: We can hardly attribute it [the delay] to an attempt by the state to gain a tactical advantage over Larry (the defendant). Similarly, in the instant case, we have no idea what happened in Utah between the time McFarland was arrested and when he was interviewed by Arkansas police officers. Without the facts of what occurred in Utah and evidence that Arkansas authorities somehow prolonged McFarland's ability to have counsel appointed for him, we will not suppress a statement. None of that has been provided us in this case, and we affirm the trial court's decision not to suppress.