Hunter Bishop v. State

2023 Ark. 150

675 S.W.3d 869

Hunter BISHOP, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-22-651

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered: October 26, 2023

Rehearing Denied January 11, 2024

Short Law Firm, by: Lee D. Short, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att'y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Sr. Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice

Appellant, Hunter Bishop, appeals his capital-murder conviction in the White County Circuit Court. He was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. For reversal, Bishop argues that the circuit court erred by (1) denying his motions to suppress evidence from the traffic stop, (2) denying his motions to suppress evidence from his detention and arrest, and (3) permitting the State to introduce videos containing statements made by law enforcement officers. We affirm.

On May 22, 2020, the State filed a criminal information charging Bishop with the capital murder of Maddison Clevenger, in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-10-101(a)(4) (Supp. 2019). Bishop's jury trial was held March 7–11 and 14–18, 2022. Evidence introduced at trial showed that Maddison had uncharacteristically not reported for work on May 15, 2020. A group of people including her father, a coworker, and Frances Ballek of the Searcy Police Department had gathered at Maddison's house at about 8:30

a.m. that day to check on her. No one answered a knock on the door, and a dog could be heard barking inside. The doors were locked, but Maddison's father pushed an air conditioner unit out of a window, climbed into the house, and opened the front door. Maddison was found dead inside. There was no sign of forced entry, and the house had not been ransacked. However, the 9mm Glock 48 handgun that Maddison had purchased four days earlier could not be found.

Later that day, officer John Aska of the Searcy Police Department was on patrol when he was advised by criminal investigators that they wanted to speak with Bishop. Authorities did not have precise contact information for Bishop, so they advised Aska to look for his vehicle. Aska waited in the vicinity of Bishop's residence. At approximately 2:45 p.m., Aska spotted Bishop's maroon Chrysler 300 drive by and conducted an investigatory traffic stop. Aska ordered Bishop out of the car and, during a pat-down search, discovered an empty holster. Aska asked Bishop where the gun was, but Bishop denied having a gun. Bishop was handcuffed, transported to the Searcy Police Department, and interviewed after he received his Miranda warnings. Bishop gave statements denying any involvement in the murder.

Police performed an inventory search of Bishop's vehicle at the scene of the stop and discovered Maddison's handgun wedged between the driver's seat and center console. Although police obtained a warrant, the vehicle search was conducted before the warrant was issued. An autopsy revealed that Maddison had been shot once in the back of the head with a 9mm bullet. An expert testified that the bullet that killed Maddison was fired from her handgun.

Before the trial, Bishop filed four motions challenging the traffic stop and subsequent detention and arrest as being a violation of Arkansas law and the U.S. Constitution. Bishop argued in those motions that all evidence found in connection with the stop and detention and arrest should be suppressed. The circuit court held a suppression hearing that included testimony from investigating detectives and Aska.

At the hearing, investigators testified that before Aska stopped Bishop, they had learned that the bullet recovered at the scene was likely a 9mm round, that Maddison was in a relationship with Bishop, that Bishop was a convicted felon, that Bishop had accompanied her to purchase her Glock several days earlier, and that Maddison's gun was not found at her home or in her car. They had also been given a description of a vehicle seen in the area at the time a gunshot was heard, but it did not match Bishop's vehicle. Additionally, investigators had developed two other persons of interest. One was Charles Stacy, Maddison's former husband, and the other was Andrew Skinner, who is the former boyfriend of Maddison's sister. Skinner was believed to have had a key to Maddison's house. He had also previously threatened to harm Maddison and had stolen her dog. Aska testified that on May 15, he was informed "through word of mouth" that investigators were looking for Bishop. Aska said he was also told that Bishop was considered armed and dangerous and was a convicted felon.

On February 15, 2022, the circuit court entered a written order denying Bishop's motions. The circuit court ruled that Bishop was legally "stopped, seized, and arrested." The circuit court concluded that there was "reasonable suspicion to stop and probable cause to arrest [Bishop] based on the officer's observations, knowledge of before, and that the

holster was empty." The circuit court also ruled that Bishop's statements were properly obtained and partially denied his motions to suppress video of his interviews. The circuit court entered an amended order denying the motions on April 1, 2022.

The jury convicted Bishop of capital murder and sentenced him to life imprisonment without parole. The State nolle prossed a charge of possession of a firearm by certain persons. Bishop filed a timely appeal.

We turn now to Bishop's appeal. In two related points, Bishop first argues that his motions to suppress evidence found during the traffic stop and his motion for reconsideration should have been granted because the traffic stop was not authorized under the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure or the Fourth Amendment to the United States Constitution. In reviewing the denial of a motion to suppress evidence, this court conducts a de novo review based on the totality of the circumstances, reviewing findings of historical facts for clear error and determining whether those facts give rise to reasonable suspicion or probable cause, giving due weight to inferences drawn by the circuit court. Lewis v. State , 2023 Ark. 12, 2023 WL 2027650. A finding is clearly erroneous, even if there is evidence to support it, when the appellate court, after review of the entire evidence, is left with the definite and firm conviction that a mistake has been made. Id. We defer to the superiority of the circuit court to evaluate the credibility of witnesses who testify at a suppression hearing. Dortch v. State , 2018 Ark. 135, 544 S.W.3d 518. A circuit court's ruling will be reversed only if it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Cone v. State , 2022 Ark. 201, 654 S.W.3d 648. Additionally, we will affirm the circuit court's decision when it reached the right result,

even if it did so for the wrong reason. Hartley v. State , 2022 Ark. 197 n.3, 654 S.W.3d 802 n.3.

The standards for determining whether the traffic stop was authorized are the same under both our rules of criminal procedure and the United States Constitution.¹ Rule 3.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure provides:

A law enforcement officer lawfully present in any place may, in the performance of his duties, stop and detain any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit (1) a felony, or (2) a misdemeanor involving danger of forcible injury to persons or of appropriation of or damage to property, if such action is reasonably necessary either to obtain or verify the identification of the person or to determine the lawfulness of his conduct.

An officer acting under this rule may require the person to remain in or near such place in the officer's presence for a period of not more than fifteen (15) minutes or for such time as is reasonable under the circumstances. At the end of such period the person detained shall be released without further restraint, or arrested and charged with an offense.

Ark. R. Crim. P. 3.1 (2020).

Rule 2.1 defines reasonable suspicion as

a suspicion based on facts or circumstances which of themselves do not give rise to the probable cause requisite to justify a lawful arrest, but which give rise to more than a bare suspicion; that is, a suspicion that is reasonable as opposed to an imaginary or purely conjectural suspicion.

Ark. R. Crim. P. 2.1 (2020).

Similarly, a police officer may conduct an investigatory stop of a person without violating the Fourth Amendment if the officer has "a reasonable suspicion that ‘criminal activity may be afoot.’ " Laime v. State , 347 Ark. 142, 156, 60 S.W.3d 464, 474 (2001) (quoting

Terry v. Ohio , 392 U.S. 1, 30, 88 S.Ct. 1868, 20 L.Ed.2d 889 (1968) ); see also Shay v. State , 2018 Ark. 393, 562 S.W.3d 832 (stating that the purpose of Rules 3.1 and 3.4 is to give effect to the holding in Terry ). Reasonable suspicion exists when the officer has "a particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of criminal activity." Kansas v. Glover , ––– U.S. ––––, 140 S. Ct. 1183, 1187, 206 L.Ed.2d 412 (2020) (citations and quotations omitted). It is more than a mere hunch, but less than probable cause, and considerably less than a preponderance of the evidence. Id. Determining the existence of reasonable suspicion is a commonsense task depending on "the factual and practical considerations of everyday life on which reasonable and prudent men, not legal technicians, act." Navarette v. California , 572 U.S. 393, 401, 134 S.Ct. 1683, 188 L.Ed.2d 680 (2014) (citations and quotations omitted). Reasonable suspicion is a totality-of-the-circumstances analysis where the individual facts known to law enforcement, and the reasonable inferences that follow from them, are not taken in isolation, but considered as a whole. E.g. , United States v. Arvizu , 534 U.S. 266, 122 S.Ct. 744, 151 L.Ed.2d 740 (2002). The collective knowledge of law enforcement at the time of the stop is to be considered in the evaluation of whether reasonable suspicion exists. United States v. Hensley , 469 U.S. 221, ...