Arnett v. State

The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion in limine to exclude his out-of-court statement, as his encounter with the detective was a second-tier stop supported by reasonable suspicion.

Thank you for sharing!

Your article was successfully shared with the contacts you provided.

A Catoosa County jury convicted Joseph Hamilton Arnett of distribution of marijuana1 and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony.2 On appeal, Arnett contends that the trial court erred by 1 admitting his out-of-court statement, which was made without a Miranda 3 warning; 2 denying his motion for a directed verdict; 3 denying his motion for mistrial following the prosecutor’s improper closing argument; and 4 failing to instruct the jury regarding the impeachment of a witness by conviction of a crime. For the reasons that follow, we affirm. Viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict,4 the record shows that on February 11, 2010, Detectives James Stockard and Jeremy Keener were driving through a mobile home park when they witnessed what appeared to be a hand-to-hand drug transaction between Arnett and the passenger of a stopped vehicle. By the time the detectives reached the scene to investigate, Arnett had disappeared on foot, but his vehicle remained. The detectives approached Casey Crane and Shawn Lowrance, the occupants of the vehicle, and saw a plastic bag containing a substance later identified as marijuana protruding from Lowrance’s coat pocket. Lowrance was holding a briefcase matching the description of one that had been reported stolen the night before, along with at least 20 firearms. At later dates, Lowrance and Crane both provided Stockard with written statements that Lowrance and Arnett had exchanged a pearl-handled pistol for marijuana.

On February 24, 2010, Detective Stockard stopped Arnett’s vehicle at a bank to discuss the investigation and ask for help recovering the stolen firearms. Arnett voluntarily followed Stockard to another parking lot for further discussion. Arnett admitted that Lowrance had contacted him the morning of February 11, 2010, because Lowrance wanted to trade a pearl-handled pistol for marijuana. Arnett also stated that he and Lowrance had agreed to meet at the mobile home park for the transaction.

Arnett v. State

The trial court did not err in denying the defendant's motion in limine to exclude his out-of-court statement, as his encounter with the detective was a second-tier stop supported by reasonable suspicion.

Share with Email

Thank you for sharing!

Trending Stories

More From ALM

Subscribe to Daily Report