ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION I

CLARA ANNETTE STEVENS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR00-730

May 16, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR 98-318-1]

HON. JOHN HOMER WRIGHT,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

The appellant in this criminal case was charged with committing the offense of second-degree murder by shooting her husband. At trial, appellant admitted that she shot the victim in the buttocks, but stated that she did so because he had been beating her and she was in fear for her life. She was sentenced to six years imprisonment, and this appeal followed.

Appellant advances three points on appeal, contending that (1) the trial court erred in admitting a statement she gave in response to questions posed to her by Investigator Martineau while she was being treated at the hospital; (2) her consent to search her house and vehicles was illegally obtained; and (3) the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. We affirm.

There was evidence at trial to show that appellant was the wife of the victim, and that they lived together in a remote area in Garland County, Arkansas. Nearby hunters heard the sound of a heated argument in appellant's house. After the arguing had continued for about an hour, they heard a gunshot from inside the house. Fifteen minutes later a woman left the house, walked into the woods, and re-entered the house. The shouting resumed inside the house, died down, and about twenty minutes later the hunters saw a woman drag a body out of the house, put it in a Corvette, and drive off. Appellant was driving extremely fast when she lost control of the Corvette and struck a telephone pole. Appellant was injured. Several drivers stopped to assist. The police arrived soon afterward. A paramedic, Tommy Patton, was called to the scene. He first checked the victim and determined that he was past resuscitation. He then administered aid to appellant, who was injured but in no immediate danger. He sat in the ambulance with appellant as she was transported to the hospital. In the ambulance, appellant told him that she was at home when she heard a gunshot and came downstairs to discover that the victim had been shot. She said that she had been driving him to the hospital when the accident occurred. She made no mention of a fight or struggle.

Investigator Martineau of the Garland County Sheriff's Department came to the hospital where appellant was being treated to perform a gunshot-residue test on her hands. He questioned appellant without advising her of her Miranda rights. Appellant told him that her husband had been drinking, that they had been arguing all day, that he physically abused her with a stun gun, and that he shot himself. Investigator Martineau asked for and received appellant's consent to search her home.

Shortly thereafter, Investigator Danny Wilson went to the hospital to see appellant. He delivered the Miranda warnings and asked appellant if she would come to the Sheriff's Department after she was released from the hospital and give a statement. Appellant agreed. Approximately one hour later, appellant gave a statement to Investigator Wilson. She told him that her husband was drinking when he came home from work, that they argued over his drinking, that a physical altercation ensued, and that she was going upstairs to get away from him when she heard a gunshot.

Corporal Scotty Dodd of the Arkansas State Police took a statement from appellant three days later at her home. He advised her of her Miranda rights and obtained a statement in which appellant said that she and her husband had been arguing, that he beat her and shocked her with a stun gun, that she picked up a handgun from a barstool, and that the handgun discharged accidentally. Corporal Dodd then searched appellant's home pursuant to a search warrant. Blood stains and a spent bullet were found in the home.

Appellant testified at her trial, stating that the victim came home in a drunken rage and abused her by beating her, shocking her with a stun gun, holding a pistol to her head, and telling her that he had raped her son. She admitted shooting the victim, but said that she did so in self-defense because she was in fear for her life. She admitted that she lied when she gave her prior statements and said she lied because she was scared.

Appellant first contends that the trial court erred in admitting her statement to Investigator Martineau while she was being treated at the hospital because he failed to advise her of her Miranda rights. We find no prejudicial error. Miranda warnings arerequired only in cases of custodial interrogation, and confinement to a hospital bed is insufficient, standing alone, to constitute police custody. Wofford v. State, 330 Ark. 8, 952 S.W.2d 646 (1997). Whether or not appellant was entitled to Miranda warnings prior to questioning in the hospital depends upon whether the circumstances were such that a reasonable person in her situation would believe he was being restrained by the police. Id. We need not decide that question in the present case, however, because were we to assume that the trial court did err in permitting Investigator Martineau to testify concerning her exculpatory statement to him, appellant suffered no prejudice because the substance of appellant's statement to Martineau was introduced at trial from several other sources, including the testimony of Investigator Wilson regarding a similar statement, the testimony of Tommy Patton regarding the similar exculpatory statement she volunteered to him, and her own trial testimony. The failure to suppress evidence is not prejudicial error when the same or similar evidence was otherwise properly admitted. Martin v. State, 328 Ark. 420, 944 S.W.2d 512 (1997), rev'd on other grounds, State v. Bell, 329 Ark. 422, 948 S.W.2d 557 (1997); Weber v. State, 326 Ark. 564, 933 S.W.2d 370 (1996); see also Remeta v. State, 300 Ark. 92, 777 S.W.2d 833 (1989).

With respect to appellant's argument that her consent to search her house and vehicles was illegally obtained, it appears from the abstract before us that appellant never moved to suppress the evidence obtained as a result of those searches. In any event, any error in the admission of this evidence would be harmless in light of her testimony at trial that she intentionally shot appellant in self-defense.

Finally, appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support her conviction. We cannot reach this issue because appellant waived her sufficiency argument by failing to state specific grounds in her directed-verdict motion. Welch v. State, 330 Ark. 158, 955 S.W.2d 181 (1997).

Affirmed.

Vaught and Hart, JJ., agree.