Benton v. State

• Decision Date: 08 April 2020
• Docket Number: No. CR-19-742,CR-19-742
• Citation: 2020 Ark. App. 223,599 S.W.3d 353
• Parties: Jesse BENTON, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

2020 Ark. App. 223

599 S.W.3d 353

Jesse BENTON, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-19-742

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION III.

Opinion Delivered: April 8, 2020

Dusti Standridge, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Adam Jackson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge

AppellantJesse Benton appeals after he was convicted by a Boone County Circuit Court jury as a habitual offender of battery in the first degree, battery in the second degree, domestic battery, and resisting arrest.He was sentenced to serve an aggregate of 288 months’ imprisonment.On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence for each of his convictions.We affirm.

I.Relevant Facts

Appellant was arrested and charged as a habitual offender of battery in the first degree, battery in the second degree, domestic battery, and resisting arrest.These charges all stemmed from events that occurred at approximately 1:30 a.m. on June 24, 2018, after law enforcement received a domestic-disturbance complaint.At a jury trial, the State presented the testimony of the three law enforcement officers and the treating physician that tended to the injuries that were sustained during the incident.

Additionally, body-camera footage from two of the officers was played for the jury without objection.Based on all the evidence introduced at trial, the following is a summary of the chain of events that occurred.

On June 24, 2018, Corporal Gregory Siemuller, Officer John Morgan, and Officer Ryan Guffy, all of the Harrison Police Department, responded to a domestic-disturbance complaint at the home of Virginia Benton, appellant’s mother, who was sixty-four years old at the time of the incident.Officer Morgan was the first to arrive at the scene followed by Officer Guffy and then Corporal Siemuller.When the officers arrived and found Ms. Benton sitting on the front porch, she appeared disheveled, her left leg was swollen, and blood was running down her left arm.She informed the officers that appellant was breaking things in the house.She stated that appellant was bipolar but was not on his medication.According to Officer Guffy’s body-camera footage that was played for the jury, Ms. Benton told Officer Guffy that appellant was "driving [her] nuts," that they had been fighting, and that she thought she injured her elbow during the fight with appellant.She later told Officer Siemuller that her foot was injured when the bathroom door was shut on it.She further explained that when she fell, appellant would not help her and that she had to crawl to get up.

Officers Morgan and Guffy entered the residence and attempted to speak with appellant while Corporal Siemuller initially remained outside with Ms. Benton.Officer Morgan asked appellant for identification.Appellant attempted to go to the kitchen to get his identification, but Officer Morgan prevented him from entering because there were several knives in the room.At this point, Officer Guffy, who had been surveying the other rooms in the house, informed Officer Morgan that there was a large knife in one of the bedrooms.Appellant then told the officers that he did not have any weapons on him, became aggressive and agitated, and removed all his clothes.Appellant attempted to push past Officer Guffy and enter the bedroom where the large knife was located.Officer Guffy testified that he attempted to stop appellant both verbally and physically; however, appellant did not stop.Officer Guffy shoved appellant against the wall in an attempt to detain him, but appellant fought back.

Officer Morgan attempted to assist Officer Guffy in detaining appellant.However, appellant placed his hands around Officer Morgan’s throat.Officer Morgan admitted he punched appellant to break free, but then appellant wrapped his arm around Officer Morgan’s neck pulling Officer Morgan down on the floor on top of him.At that point, appellant began to use his fingers to dig at Officer Morgan’s eyes.During the scuffle, appellant managed to remove Officer Morgan’s K-9 leash and attempted to strangle him with it.

Corporal Siemuller, who entered the home to assist by this point, and Officer Guffy attempted to use their stun guns on appellant to make him stop fighting, but neither was able to effectively make contact.During that time, appellant kicked Officer Guffy twice in the face.Corporal Siemuller testified that appellant’s face was mostly looking toward the officers during the struggle.Once the officers had appellant in handcuffs, he threatened to "stomp" their heads and said, "[B]etter pray homie."Appellant continued to try to escape the handcuffs until other officers arrived to assist.

Appellant, Officer Morgan, Officer Guffy, and Ms. Benton all went to the hospital where they were examined and treated for any injuries by Dr. Trey Powell.Dr. Powell testified that appellant had a blood alcohol level of .162 and that the legal level of intoxication is .08. Additionally, appellant tested positive for marijuana.Dr. Powell explained that he gave appellant a shot to help calm him down, but appellant did not have any significant injuries or trauma on physical exam.According to Dr. Powell, Ms. Benton was sixty-four years old and presented with a contusion and tenderness on her foot.She told him that her foot had been "slammed" in a door.She also had an abrasion or cut on her left arm.Officer Morgan suffered from a corneal abrasion on his right eye.Officer Guffy had a broken nose along with fractures to his sinus and orbital bones.Officer Guffy subsequently had to have surgery to fix the injuries.Officer Guffy testified that the surgeon had to shave part of the right side of his nose to allow him to breathe out of his right nostril.Two stents were placed in his sinus area.After his sinus bone healed, the surgeon "went in with a claw and pulled down my eye and put in a titanium plate with some screws to hold my eye from sinking back into my skull."Although the plate is still there, the stents were eventually removed.He had to miss work for over a month and then was allowed to return only to light duty for another month.Moreover, at the time of the trial, Officer Guffy testified that he continued to have numbness in his upper lip and double vision in his right eye as a result of the incident.

The jury found appellant guilty of first-degree battery of Officer Guffy, second-degree battery of Officer Morgan, second-degree domestic battery of Ms. Benton, and resisting arrest.He was sentenced to seventeen years’ imprisonment on the first-degree battery, seven years each on second-degree battery and second-degree domestic battery, and one year in the county jail for resisting arrest.The circuit court imposed the sentence for second-degree battery consecutively to the sentence for first-degree battery.It imposed the sentence for second-degree domestic battery and resisting arrest concurrently.This appeal followed.

II.Standard of Review

A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.Hinton v. State , 2015 Ark. 479, 477 S.W.3d 517.When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court assesses the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and considers only the evidence that supports the verdict.Id.The sufficiency of the evidence is tested to determine whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial.Wyles v. State , 368 Ark. 646, 249 S.W.3d 782(2007);Hoyle v. State , 371 Ark. 495, 502, 268 S.W.3d 313, 318(2007).Substantial evidence is evidence which is of sufficient force and character that will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resorting to speculation or conjecture.Hinton, supra.Finally, the credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury and not the court.Id.The trier of fact is free to believe all or part of any witness’s testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence.Id.

This court has noted that a criminal defendant’s intent or state of mind is seldom apparent.Rose v. State , 2018 Ark. App. 446, 558 S.W.3d 415.One’s intent or purpose, being a state of mind, can seldom be positively known to others, so it ordinarily cannot be shown by direct evidence but may be inferred from the facts and circumstances.Id.Because intent cannot be proved by direct evidence, the fact-finder is allowed to draw on common knowledge and experience to infer it from the circumstances.Id.Because of the difficulty in ascertaining a defendant’s intent or state of mind, a presumption exists that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his or her acts.Id.

III.Sufficiency of the Evidence to Sustain the First-Degree-Battery Conviction

On appeal, appellant first argues that the State failed to prove that he had the required mental state to commit battery in the first degree against Officer Ryan Guffy.He specifically argues that the State failed to prove the culpable mental state required to find that he acted under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.He argues that he was intoxicated in the privacy of his own home and claims that he was trying to be compliant with the officers despite them giving mutually exclusive commands.He further claims that he did not display an intent to harm or disrespect the officers but that it was the officers that escalated the situation and attacked him for no reason.Thus, he claims that the circuit court erred in not sustaining his motion for directed verdict as to battery in the first degree against Officer Guffy.We disagree.

In relevant part, a person commits battery in the first degree if the "person causes serious physical injury to another person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life."Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-201(a)(3)(Supp. 2019)."Serious physical injury" means...