Court affirms Vance conviction in Anne Pressly slaying | Arkansas Blog

Thursday, June 2, 2011

Court affirms Vance conviction in Anne Pressly slaying

Posted By on Thu, Jun 2, 2011 at 9:21 AM

ANNE PRESSLY: Killers conviction affirmed.
  • ANNE PRESSLY: Killer's conviction affirmed.
The Arkansas Supreme Court today affirmed the conviction of Curtis Lavell Vance in the Oct. 20, 2008 slaying of KATV anchor Anne Pressly. Jury found him guilty of burglary, theft, rape and murder in the beating death of Pressly in her Heights home.

Among other points, the court said it found no error in Vance's claim that DNA evidence and a statement he gave police should have been suppressed at the trial. The court said Vance had freely given a saliva sample during a time when he was not under arrest and thus couldn't mount a constitutional challenge to use of that evidence. It also said he had waived Miranda rights in questioning by Little Rock police detectives in which he made incriminating statements about being in Pressly's house. The court also denied Vance's appeal that his case was prejudiced by introduction of testimony linking him to a rape of a Marianna school teacher (a charge that eventually ended in a hung jury and mistrial). The court said the crimes were sufficiently similar for the earlier assault to be discussed.

Here's the opinion.

UPDATE: In concurring with the decision, Justice Jim Hannah wrote a short separate opinion on a point that might have significance in the future on use of evidence of an unrelated crime:


The State introduced the evidence of the unrelated crimes in Marianna at its own peril. Substantial evidence of the charged crimes was introduced at trial and would support the jury’s verdict of guilty of the crimes charged in the present case. The course taken by the State in this case would have precluded a harmless-error analysis had Vance succeeded in his arguments that Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b) excluded the evidence. Because the State introduced the evidence of unrelated crimes in Marianna, this court could not have found that the guilty verdict
rendered “was surely unattributable to the error.” See Sullivan v. Louisiana, 508 U.S. 275, 279
(1993).

Because the majority continues to hold contrary to my view on the admissibility of evidence of similar crimes, wrongs, or acts, I concur with the outcome of this case under the principle of stare decisis. However, I state my willingness to revisit this issue in the future.

Tags: , ,


Favorite

Comments (3)

Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

 
Subscribe to this thread:
Showing 1-3 of 3

Add a comment

More by Max Brantley

Readers also liked…

  • Little Rock school activists announce events for 60th anniversary of Central High crisis

    The group is not affiliated with the official "Reflections of Progress" commemoration of the 60th anniversary. However, at least two of the Little Rock Nine may be joining the group for an event at 2:30 p.m. at the state Capitol in the Old Supreme Court Chamber.
    • Sep 14, 2017
  • Trump tariffs hit farmers hard

    Well, the trade war has begun and the early returns for farmers are not good — sharp reductions in the prices for soybeans and corn. You may have heard that Arkansas, which overwhelmingly supported Donald Trump, has some agricultural interests, particularly in soybeans.
    • Jul 6, 2018
  • Arkansas legislature rejects bipartisan effort to study race relations

    On Friday, the Arkansas Legislative Council soundly rejected a bipartisan effort by two senators to to create a temporary legislative subcommittee to study race relations in the state.
    • Sep 15, 2017

Most Recent Comments

 

© 2019 Arkansas Times | 201 East Markham, Suite 200, Little Rock, AR 72201
Powered by Foundation