Clay v. State
| Decision Date | 25 March 1996 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Parties | Michael CLAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 95-1145. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Bart E. Ziegenhorn, West Memphis, for appellant.
Kent G. Holt, Asst. Attorney General, Little Rock, for appellee.
Michael Clay was convicted of capital murder and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole. We reversed the conviction and remanded the case. Clay v. State, 318 Ark. 122, 883 S.W.2d 822 (1994). He was retried, convicted, and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole for capital felony murder. Mr. Clay argues two points of appeal. He first contends the evidence was insufficient to establish the allegation that he murdered Glynda Wallace in the course of committing a felony as required for conviction pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 5-10-101. We hold the evidence was sufficient. His second point is that it was error for the Trial Court to admit evidence of a ballistics test because the State had not properly proved the weapon to which the testimony related belonged to him and because the weapon could not be produced at the trial. We hold the evidence connecting the weapon to Mr. Clay was sufficient. We affirm the judgment.
The State's evidence in the second trial showed these facts. On August 14, 1990, the body of Glynda Wallace was found near Macedonia Road in Gilmore. Ms. Wallace died as the result of a gunshot wound. On August 20, 1990, the burned shell of Ms. Wallace's Pontiac was located in a rice field.
The Crittenden County Sheriff's Department received an anonymous tip that Michael Clay was seen driving the victim's car. On Thursday, August 23, 1990, Officer John Murray of the Crittenden County Sheriff's Department asked Mr. Clay to come in for questioning concerning the theft of the victim's vehicle. Mr. Clay voluntarily accompanied Officer Murray to the Sheriff's Department. He waived his rights and said the car belonged to his friend, Leslie Shaw. Later that evening Mr. Clay was detained again by the Sheriff's Department. He again waived his rights and made a tape-recorded statement in which he claimed that he bought the car from his uncle. At that point, Mr. Clay was charged with theft by receiving of Ms. Wallace's vehicle.
After being charged, Mr. Clay escaped from the jail and was not apprehended until Saturday, August 25, 1990. On that date, he was questioned further regarding his possession of the vehicle and the murder of Ms. Wallace. He waived his rights and made another tape-recorded statement in which he claimed he was in the car when Ms. Wallace was murdered by his friend Robert who later gave him the car.
In his first two tape-recorded statements, Mr. Clay stated that he attempted to have the vehicle inspected at a service station in Turrell. Dale Doss, a service station attendant, later testified that he remembered conducting a state inspection of a Pontiac Grand Am at Mr. Clay's request on August 18, 1990.
Mr. Clay was held overnight and was questioned again on the following evening, Sunday, August 26, 1990. At that time, Mr. Clay waived his rights again and gave a statement in which he stated:
I was walking down to Gilmore. I seen this lady had a flat. She needed some help. I helped her. I asked her to give me a ride. She said no. I got my gun out, and I asked her to give me a ride. She gave me a ride. We went on down the road. She said I would have to jump out before she stopped, because she ain't stopping, she ain't going to Gilmore. I went to jump out, and next thing I know my gun went off.
Mr. Clay then stated that his friend, Robert Turner, burned the car.
Mr. Clay made timely motions for a directed verdict on the ground that the prosecution failed to prove capital felony murder because there was no substantial evidence that Ms. Wallace was murdered in the course of and in furtherance of a felony. He contends the motions should have been granted because the State's proof indicated only that the robbery was an "afterthought" to the murder, and not its motivating purpose.
In support of his argument, Mr. Clay relies on the fact that the statements introduced, while contradictory, indicate only that the shooting was accidental, and not in the furtherance of a robbery. He argues, citing Grigsby v. State, 260 Ark. 499, 542 S.W.2d 275 (1976), that his possession of Ms. Wallace's vehicle after the homicide does not necessarily indicate that he is guilty of capital felony murder. We rejected a similar claim in the Grigsby case and said:
Appellant argues that his motion for directed verdict and reduction of his charge to one of first degree murder should have been granted. This argument is based upon his contention that the only evidence about what happened at the time of the killing showed that he took Childers' property after the killing, and that there is no evidence that this taking was anything other than an afterthought. For us to rule as a matter of law that the robbery was an afterthought would require that portions of Grigsby's statement, which was...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Martin v. State
...the sole inquiry is whether there was sufficient evidence to support the underlying crime of aggravated robbery. See Clay v. State, 324 Ark. 9, 919 S.W.2d 190 (1996). Martin argues that the circumstantial evidence that Ms. Artis's rings were missing was not substantial proof that they were ......
-
Collins v. State
...or occurred within the same brief interval." See Norris v. State , 2010 Ark. 174, at 6, 368 S.W.3d 52, 56 (quoting Clay v. State , 324 Ark. 9, 12, 919 S.W.2d 190,191–92 (1996) ). Collins now urges this court to extend to his case the rationale of Mitchell v. State , 281 Ark. 112, 661 S.W.2d......
-
Norris v. State
...striking both victims, Norris grabbed him and demanded money. This court, citing previous decisions, stated in Clay v. State, 324 Ark. 9, 12, 919 S.W.2d 190, 191–92 (1996) that the State need only prove that the robbery and the murder were parts of the same transaction, or occurred within t......
-
Clay v. Kelley
...of Ms. Wallace's vehicle after the homicide did not indicate that he was guilty of capital felony murder. Clay v. State , 324 Ark. 9, 10–11, 919 S.W.2d 190, 190–91 (1996). This court found that Clay's statements, when combined with the evidence of his subsequent conduct with respect to Ms. ......