Opinion ID: 2461416
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: The January 14 and 15 statements

Text: Patterson contends he asked for an attorney each time he spoke with the sheriff's deputies who took statements from him. The officers testified either that he made no such request or that they could not recall him making it. Patterson contends that at one point when he asked for an attorney to advise him, the officers interviewing him sent for a deputy prosecutor who did not speak to him directly but who answered questions he had about possible sentences by relaying the answers through a sheriffs deputy. The officers testified that a deputy prosecutor was at the jail where they questioned Patterson for up to 30 minutes, and they did ask him questions in connection with the case, but they did not recall that he was called there as a result of Patterson's request for the assistance of a lawyer. Patterson also contends he was promised that, if he confessed, the death penalty would be waived and his son and Stone would not be sent to prison. The issue of voluntariness of an inculpatory statement given by an accused in custody is one this Court determines after looking at the totality of the circumstances displayed by the record. Weaver v. State, 305 Ark. 180, 806 S.W.2d 615 (1991). The trial court must resolve conflicts in testimony, and we will not reverse unless the decision in that respect is clearly erroneous. Fuller v. State, 278 Ark. 450, 646 S.W.2d 700 (1983). Patterson has given us nothing to suggest that the Trial Court in this case was clearly erroneous in choosing to believe the officers rather than Patterson on these questions.