Cite as 2025 Ark. 22 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-24-477
Opinion Delivered: March 13, 2025 BILLY MICHAEL NELSON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE UNION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 70CR-23-140]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE SPENCER G. APPELLEE SINGLETON, JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice
Appellant Billy Michael Nelson was convicted of rape of a minor less than fourteen
years of age. Because he had previously been convicted of rape, he received a mandatory
sentence of life imprisonment. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(c)(3) (Repl. 2024). For reversal,
Nelson argues that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress his custodial
statement. We affirm.
I. Background
On February 9, 2023, ten-year-old Minor Victim (“MV”) told her friend that she
had “hickeys” on her chest; her friend, in turn, told their teacher. MV’s mother was notified
by the school and MV was taken to the hospital. There, MV received an examination for
sexual assault. The Union County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to the hospital to take
MV’s statement and photograph the markings on MV’s chest. MV stated that her neighbor, Nelson, gave her the hickeys. She explained that Nelson had sex with her while she was at
his house doing homework.
On September 25, 2023, the State filed the operative criminal information in this
case charging Nelson as a habitual offender with one count of rape of MV. Following
Nelson’s arrest, he was interviewed by Sergeant Jim Sanders. At the outset, Nelson was
Mirandized, and he signed a waiver of his rights.
Sergeant Sanders explained to Nelson that he had been arrested on a felony warrant
for raping MV. He told Nelson that he had “substantial evidence to prove that something
probably happened” but wanted to get Nelson’s “side of the story.”
Nelson stated that he lived with his sister in a trailer behind MV’s house. MV would
come over to Nelson’s home after school to do homework. He explained that he would
help MV with her homework. Nelson admitted that they would normally work on MV’s
homework in his bedroom with the door shut.
Sergeant Sanders asked, “[A]t what point did it become a little bit more physical with
you and [MV]?” Nelson replied that MV began lifting her shirt up and he told her to put it
back down. Sergeant Sanders then asked about the hickeys on MV’s chest, and Nelson
initially denied causing them. Sergeant Sanders replied, “I don’t think you’re a bad person.
I’m just trying to figure out why this happened. Now, I know it happened. I know it did.
I have kits with your DNA where it shouldn’t be. Okay?” He added that he was trying to
get Nelson’s “side” of the story and asked if MV was “promiscuous.” Nelson agreed that
MV was promiscuous.
2 Sergeant Sanders followed up by asking what MV did to make Nelson believe she
was promiscuous. He added, “I can’t help you if I don’t know the whys.” Nelson responded,
“[S]he had told me if I didn’t, she was going to tell her daddy that I did.” Sergeant Sanders
asked for further clarification, “Help me poke holes in her story.” Nelson then explained
that MV told him that if he “didn’t play with her boobies . . . that she was going to tell her
daddy that I did.” He then stated that MV put his face into her chest, and he commented
that his nose could have caused MV’s bruises.
Nelson further remarked, “What good is this going to do me?” Sergeant Sanders
replied, “I can’t help you unless you tell me the whole truth.” He suggested that a truthful
statement from Nelson could allow him to question MV about the allegations and her
purported threats.
Later in the interview, Nelson asked, “[MV]’s trying to say that I had sex with her?”
Sergeant Sanders replied, “Yeah. Anally to be specific.” He added:
The medical exam shows that there is trauma. . . . I can’t wrap my head around the fact that that didn’t happen also. . . . Before I go––before we go to court today, and I go to the prosecutor or the judge, and they ask me, was he honest? Was he––did he come forward and everything else? You know, right now I can say, I feel like he’s come forward honestly on some of it. So––and of course when the DNA results come back and everything else from this kit, and for the medical examination that was taken care of at the Child Advocacy Center, I want to be able to kind of block that before it even gets here.
At this point, Nelson admitted that he used his finger to penetrate MV’s anus. He also
admitted that MV touched his penis and that he put his penis in her mouth.
Prior to trial, Nelson moved to suppress his custodial interview, contending that his
statement was involuntary and coerced. He pointed to Sergeant Sanders’s statements that he
had “examinations done” from rape kits; “I have kits with your DNA where it shouldn’t
3 be”; and “I can’t help you unless you are . . . truthful.” After a hearing, the circuit court
denied Nelson’s motion to suppress. Nelson was subsequently convicted of rape and
sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. He now appeals.
II. Discussion
On appeal, Nelson challenges the circuit court’s denial of his motion to suppress his
custodial statement. He contends that his statement was coerced and involuntary due to the
interrogating officer’s deceit, misrepresentations, and promises of help. When we review a
circuit court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we make an independent determination based
on the totality of the circumstances. Pree v. State, 2019 Ark. 258, 583 S.W.3d 380. We will
reverse the circuit court’s ruling only if it is clearly against the preponderance of the
evidence. Conway v. State, 2016 Ark. 7, 479 S.W.3d 1. A statement while in custody is
presumptively involuntary, and the burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that a custodial statement was given voluntarily. Fritts v. State, 2013 Ark. 505,
431 S.W.3d 227.
Nelson’s challenge can be separated into two distinct arguments. First, he claims that
Sergeant Sanders coerced his confession by misrepresenting the strength of the State’s case.
In particular, he asserts that Sergeant Sanders lied to him about having DNA evidence and
medical-examination findings of trauma.
The fact that a police officer makes an untrue statement during the course of an
interrogation does not necessarily render an otherwise voluntary statement inadmissible.
Goodwin v. State, 373 Ark. 53, 281 S.W.3d 258 (2008). We have found no fault with an
interrogator trying to persuade an accused to tell the truth or to answer questions, even
4 though the interrogator may have made misrepresentations of fact, so long as the means
employed are not calculated to procure an untrue statement and the confession is otherwise
voluntarily made. Friar v. State, 2016 Ark. 245. There is no indication in this case that the
purported misrepresentations by police were calculated to procure an untrue statement from
Nelson. Rather, the record reflects that at the time of Nelson’s interview, Sergeant Sanders
had already interviewed MV, and his repeated comments that he knew what happened
suggested he believed MV’s account. As such, Sergeant Sanders’s tactic was intended to
procure an accurate statement from Nelson.
Nelson next claims that his statement was coerced through false promises of help. He
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2025 Ark. 22 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-24-477
Opinion Delivered: March 13, 2025 BILLY MICHAEL NELSON APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE UNION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 70CR-23-140]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE SPENCER G. APPELLEE SINGLETON, JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice
Appellant Billy Michael Nelson was convicted of rape of a minor less than fourteen
years of age. Because he had previously been convicted of rape, he received a mandatory
sentence of life imprisonment. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-501(c)(3) (Repl. 2024). For reversal,
Nelson argues that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to suppress his custodial
statement. We affirm.
I. Background
On February 9, 2023, ten-year-old Minor Victim (“MV”) told her friend that she
had “hickeys” on her chest; her friend, in turn, told their teacher. MV’s mother was notified
by the school and MV was taken to the hospital. There, MV received an examination for
sexual assault. The Union County Sheriff’s Office was dispatched to the hospital to take
MV’s statement and photograph the markings on MV’s chest. MV stated that her neighbor, Nelson, gave her the hickeys. She explained that Nelson had sex with her while she was at
his house doing homework.
On September 25, 2023, the State filed the operative criminal information in this
case charging Nelson as a habitual offender with one count of rape of MV. Following
Nelson’s arrest, he was interviewed by Sergeant Jim Sanders. At the outset, Nelson was
Mirandized, and he signed a waiver of his rights.
Sergeant Sanders explained to Nelson that he had been arrested on a felony warrant
for raping MV. He told Nelson that he had “substantial evidence to prove that something
probably happened” but wanted to get Nelson’s “side of the story.”
Nelson stated that he lived with his sister in a trailer behind MV’s house. MV would
come over to Nelson’s home after school to do homework. He explained that he would
help MV with her homework. Nelson admitted that they would normally work on MV’s
homework in his bedroom with the door shut.
Sergeant Sanders asked, “[A]t what point did it become a little bit more physical with
you and [MV]?” Nelson replied that MV began lifting her shirt up and he told her to put it
back down. Sergeant Sanders then asked about the hickeys on MV’s chest, and Nelson
initially denied causing them. Sergeant Sanders replied, “I don’t think you’re a bad person.
I’m just trying to figure out why this happened. Now, I know it happened. I know it did.
I have kits with your DNA where it shouldn’t be. Okay?” He added that he was trying to
get Nelson’s “side” of the story and asked if MV was “promiscuous.” Nelson agreed that
MV was promiscuous.
2 Sergeant Sanders followed up by asking what MV did to make Nelson believe she
was promiscuous. He added, “I can’t help you if I don’t know the whys.” Nelson responded,
“[S]he had told me if I didn’t, she was going to tell her daddy that I did.” Sergeant Sanders
asked for further clarification, “Help me poke holes in her story.” Nelson then explained
that MV told him that if he “didn’t play with her boobies . . . that she was going to tell her
daddy that I did.” He then stated that MV put his face into her chest, and he commented
that his nose could have caused MV’s bruises.
Nelson further remarked, “What good is this going to do me?” Sergeant Sanders
replied, “I can’t help you unless you tell me the whole truth.” He suggested that a truthful
statement from Nelson could allow him to question MV about the allegations and her
purported threats.
Later in the interview, Nelson asked, “[MV]’s trying to say that I had sex with her?”
Sergeant Sanders replied, “Yeah. Anally to be specific.” He added:
The medical exam shows that there is trauma. . . . I can’t wrap my head around the fact that that didn’t happen also. . . . Before I go––before we go to court today, and I go to the prosecutor or the judge, and they ask me, was he honest? Was he––did he come forward and everything else? You know, right now I can say, I feel like he’s come forward honestly on some of it. So––and of course when the DNA results come back and everything else from this kit, and for the medical examination that was taken care of at the Child Advocacy Center, I want to be able to kind of block that before it even gets here.
At this point, Nelson admitted that he used his finger to penetrate MV’s anus. He also
admitted that MV touched his penis and that he put his penis in her mouth.
Prior to trial, Nelson moved to suppress his custodial interview, contending that his
statement was involuntary and coerced. He pointed to Sergeant Sanders’s statements that he
had “examinations done” from rape kits; “I have kits with your DNA where it shouldn’t
3 be”; and “I can’t help you unless you are . . . truthful.” After a hearing, the circuit court
denied Nelson’s motion to suppress. Nelson was subsequently convicted of rape and
sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment. He now appeals.
II. Discussion
On appeal, Nelson challenges the circuit court’s denial of his motion to suppress his
custodial statement. He contends that his statement was coerced and involuntary due to the
interrogating officer’s deceit, misrepresentations, and promises of help. When we review a
circuit court’s denial of a motion to suppress, we make an independent determination based
on the totality of the circumstances. Pree v. State, 2019 Ark. 258, 583 S.W.3d 380. We will
reverse the circuit court’s ruling only if it is clearly against the preponderance of the
evidence. Conway v. State, 2016 Ark. 7, 479 S.W.3d 1. A statement while in custody is
presumptively involuntary, and the burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that a custodial statement was given voluntarily. Fritts v. State, 2013 Ark. 505,
431 S.W.3d 227.
Nelson’s challenge can be separated into two distinct arguments. First, he claims that
Sergeant Sanders coerced his confession by misrepresenting the strength of the State’s case.
In particular, he asserts that Sergeant Sanders lied to him about having DNA evidence and
medical-examination findings of trauma.
The fact that a police officer makes an untrue statement during the course of an
interrogation does not necessarily render an otherwise voluntary statement inadmissible.
Goodwin v. State, 373 Ark. 53, 281 S.W.3d 258 (2008). We have found no fault with an
interrogator trying to persuade an accused to tell the truth or to answer questions, even
4 though the interrogator may have made misrepresentations of fact, so long as the means
employed are not calculated to procure an untrue statement and the confession is otherwise
voluntarily made. Friar v. State, 2016 Ark. 245. There is no indication in this case that the
purported misrepresentations by police were calculated to procure an untrue statement from
Nelson. Rather, the record reflects that at the time of Nelson’s interview, Sergeant Sanders
had already interviewed MV, and his repeated comments that he knew what happened
suggested he believed MV’s account. As such, Sergeant Sanders’s tactic was intended to
procure an accurate statement from Nelson.
Nelson next claims that his statement was coerced through false promises of help. He
points to Sergeant Sanders’s statements that he was trying to “poke holes” in MV’s
allegations and that he could not “help” Nelson without knowing “the whys” and without
Nelson telling the “whole truth.” According to Nelson, these statements constituted
unambiguous promises of leniency.
It is well settled that a statement induced by a false promise of reward or leniency is
not a voluntary statement. Fuson v. State, 2011 Ark. 374, 383 S.W.3d 848. We have adopted
a two-stage inquiry for instances in which defendants allege that false promises by police
officers induced their custodial statements. Kellon v. State, 2018 Ark. 46, 538 S.W.3d 206.
First, we look at the nature of the officer’s statement. Id. If the officer made an unambiguous,
false promise of leniency, then the statement elicited from the defendant is automatically
inadmissible; if the officer made no promises of leniency, the statement is admissible. Id. If
the officer’s statements were of an ambiguous nature, however, we proceed to the second
step of the analysis to examine the defendant’s vulnerability. Id. Factors to be considered in
5 determining vulnerability include: (1) the age, education, and intelligence of the accused;
(2) how long it took to obtain the statement; (3) the defendant’s experience, if any, with
the criminal justice system; and (4) the delay between the Miranda warnings and the
confession. Fuson, supra.
Despite Nelson’s contention, Sergeant Sanders’s statements to “poke holes” and
“help” are not unambiguous promises of leniency. We have demanded a degree of
specificity not present here. For example, in Teas v. State, 266 Ark. 572, 574, 587 S.W.2d
28, 29 (1979), we reversed the circuit court’s decision to admit a confession that was
obtained after officers offered to reduce the defendant’s hearing bond and to make
recommendations to the prosecutor. These promises were made in exchange for the
defendant’s confession. Here, Sergeant Sanders made no specific representations to Nelson. 1
Viewed in context, Sanders was making general statements for Nelson to be truthful in
providing his account. We have found no fault with an interrogator trying to persuade an
accused to tell the truth. Friar, 2016 Ark. 245, at 14.
To the extent that Sergeant Sanders’s statements are regarded as ambiguous, we
consider Nelson’s vulnerability. Nelson was forty-six years old at the time of the interview,
and there is no indication that he possesses below-normal intelligence. He has experience
with the criminal justice system as he had previously been convicted of rape. He was given
1 Nelson likens Sergeant Sanders’s statements to those made in Pyles v. State, 329 Ark. 73, 947 S.W.2d 754 (1997), and Tatum v. State, 266 Ark. 506, 585 S.W.2d 957 (1979). In those cases, this court found the interrogating officers committed reversible error by telling the respective defendants they would “help him in every way in the world” and “do all [they] could to help him.” Pyles, 329 Ark. at 77, 947 S.W.2d at 755; Tatum, 266 Ark. at 509, 585 S.W.2d at 958. These comments are distinguishable in that they are committed offers of assistance.
6 his Miranda warnings at the beginning of the interview, which lasted less than forty minutes.
Accordingly, Nelson was not particularly susceptible to having his will overborne. Goodwin,
372 Ark. at 62, 281 S.W.3d at 266. Reviewing the totality of the circumstances, we cannot
say that the circuit court clearly erred in refusing to suppress Nelson’s confession.
III. Rule 4-3(a) Review
In compliance with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(a), the record has been
examined for all objections, motions, and requests made by either party that were decided
adversely to Nelson. No prejudicial error has been found.
Special Justice MARK ALLISON joins.
BRONNI, J., not participating.
Law Offices of John Wesley Hall, by: Samantha J. Carpenter, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Joseph Karl Luebke, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.