Skip to main content

Arnett v. State

Citations

  • 122 S.W.3d 484
  • 353 Ark. 165
  • 2003 Ark. LEXIS 257

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

  • holding that it is irrelevant whether the statement, if in fact spontaneous, was made before or after Miranda warnings had been issued, or whether appellant was in custody
  • holding that a confession made in response to a police officer’s asking, “What’s up?” was admissible because it was not made in the context of a police interroga tion
  • holding that a confession made in response to a police officer asking Arnett “what’s up?” was admissible because it was not made in the context of a police interrogation
  • stating that the phrase “What’s up?” constitutes a general term of salutation, and holding that the officer’s use of the phrase, under the circumstances of that case, was not interrogation or its functional equivalent

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).

Judges: W.H. \Dub\ Arnold

Read full opinion on CourtListener

Cited by

25 cases in this archive cite this case; the 20 most cited are listed.

Cites

14 cases in this archive are cited by this case.

Other cases with this name

Sourced from CourtListener / Free Law Project (CC0).

This is legal information, not legal advice. Laws vary by jurisdiction and change frequently. Always verify current law with official sources and consult a licensed attorney in your jurisdiction for advice on your specific situation.