stating that, pursuant to section 16-89-125(e), the circuit court did not err in making available to the jury during deliberations taped statements that had already been played for the jury during trial and admitted into evidence
How later courts described this case
- stating that, pursuant to section 16-89-125(e), the circuit court did not err in making available to the jury during deliberations taped statements that had already been played for the jury during trial and admitted into evidence
- holding that defendant was not in custody where she was asked, not ordered, to go to the police station; she was not handcuffed; and she was described as very cooperative
- holding that defendant’s question “Do I need to call an attorney?” was not a clear invocation of the right to counsel
- holding defendant not .in custody where she was asked, not ordered, to go to the police station; she was not handcuffed; and she. was described as very cooperative
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice, dissenting. Once again, the majority concludes, as it did in Anderson v. State, 367 Ark. 536 , 242 S.W.3d 229 (2006), that the circuit court did not err when it allowed the jury to take Flanagan’s recorded statements and a tape recorder or a TV/VCR into the jury room where the jury was deliberating. I must respectfully dissent in this case for the reasons stated in my dissenting opinion in Anderson v. State, supra.
Corbin, J., joins this dissent.