Arkansas Supreme Court: Miranda Waiver Voluntary Despite Head Injury, Denies Suppression for Keenan Hudson

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the circuit court’s October 15, 2021, denial of Keenan Hudson’s motion to suppress custodial statements made on Feb. 13, 2019, finding the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Hudson’s Miranda waiver was knowing, intelligent, and voluntary.

At a suppression hearing, investigators testified they advised Hudson of his Miranda rights both verbally and with a written waiver form, which Hudson signed and initialed. Video recordings of the interviews—played for the circuit court but not the jury—show Hudson asking whether a mark on his head was noticeable and acknowledging a knot and small laceration; the interviewing investigator, Jeremiah Richard, testified he did not recall anything that would have impaired Hudson’s ability to understand or waive his rights. The circuit court reviewed the recordings and found Hudson coherent and responsive during questioning.

Hudson argued his head injury made any waiver involuntary and that he should have received medical treatment instead of interrogation. The circuit court concluded—after reviewing the recorded interviews and the signed waiver forms—that Hudson spoke coherently, recited details that evolved as investigators learned more, and did not request medical attention during the interviews. On appeal, the Supreme Court applied an independent review of voluntariness and concluded the totality of the circumstances supports the circuit court’s determination that Hudson knowingly and voluntarily waived his rights.

The court’s decision discusses controlling standards for custodial statements and Miranda waivers: a custodial statement is presumptively involuntary and the State bears the burden to prove voluntariness by a preponderance, but courts examine the totality of circumstances including the accused’s age, education, background, and the presence of coercion, deception, or physical impairment. The opinion noted Hudson did not assert coercion, deception, or intimidation; his challenge rested solely on the head injury, which the circuit court found insufficient to render the waiver involuntary.

The Supreme Court’s order affirmed the denial of suppression and allowed the State to refer to Hudson’s prior inconsistent statements during cross-examination at trial, while the recorded interviews themselves were not played for the jury.