Coleman v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 08 October 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 283 Ark. 359,676 S.W.2d 736 |
| Parties | William COLEMAN, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 84-107. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
James M. Simpson, Pine Bluff, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Theodore Holder, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The appellant was convicted by a jury of burglary, two counts of theft of property and found to be a habitual offender. He was sentenced to a term of twenty-five years imprisonment on each charge, to be served consecutively. It is from that conviction that this appeal is brought. This appeal is before us under Ark.Sup.Ct.R. 29(1)(b).
The charges arose over the March 23, 1983, theft of a vehicle from Hatcher Construction Co., in Pine Bluff, the subsequent entry into Dillard's department store, and the theft of property therefrom. On appeal, the appellant challenges the trial court's denial of his motion for a directed verdict and the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.
The State presented evidence that a van worth approximately $4500 was stolen from the Hatcher Construction Company on March 23, 1983. At approximately 10:30 p.m. on the same day, the van was seen by a passerby, John Watson, at Dillard's department store in Pine Bluff, driven through a plate glass window. Watson went to telephone the police and, upon returning, the van was being driven away. He was unable to identify the driver.
After the police arrived, the store officials were notified of the incident, and it was determined that merchandise was missing from the electronics department. The department manager made an inventory of items that were missing and gave the list to the Pine Bluff detectives investigating the burglary. There were fourteen items on the list and all but four had the serial numbers listed. Several of these items were later recovered and, as a result of the investigation, the appellant was arrested on February 21, 1984. On February 23, 1984, he was read the standard Miranda Rights form and signed it indicating he understood. Three detectives were present and appellant agreed to talk to them about the burglary at Dillard's on March 23, 1983. The appellant in his oral statement went into detail about taking the van from the construction company, driving it into Dillard's and taking the televisions and other electronic items on the inventory list. Appellant did not account for all of the items but told the detectives enough for them to recover several of the items they had not found. Appellant was asked to put his statement in writing, but he refused.
We have held that "[a] directed verdict is proper only when no fact issue exists and on appeal we review the evidence in the light most favorable to appellee and affirm if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict." Harris v. State, 262 Ark. 680, 561 S.W.2d 69 (1978).
The standard for reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence is similar. In Phillips v. State, 271 Ark. 96, 607 S.W.2d 664 (1980), reh'g denied, we held that:
[i]t is well-settled that on appeal in criminal cases the evidence must be viewed in the light most favorable to appellee and the judgment affirmed if there is any substantial evidence to support the finding of the trier of fact. (citations omitted) Substantial evidence is that which is more than a scintilla and must do more than create a suspicion of the existence of the fact to be established; it is such relevant evidence as a reasonable mind might accept as adequate to support a conclusion.
In ...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
David v. State
...of the evidence. Glick v. State, 275 Ark. 34, 627 S.W.2d 14 (1982). It is proper only when no issue of fact exists. Coleman v. State, 283 Ark. 359, 676 S.W.2d 736 (1984). On appeal, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and affirms if there is any subst......
-
David v. State, CR87-157
...a shotgun from Thomas Ivy and killed Whitfield himself. These are the facts as stated most favorably to the state. Coleman v. State, 283 Ark. 359, 676 S.W.2d 736 (1984). Appellant's first argument is that the trial judge should have recused since he signed a search warrant in the case. In H......
-
Deshazier v. State
...conviction. [Boone] v. State, 282 Ark. 274, 668 S.W.2d 17 (1984). Circumstantial evidence can be substantial evidence. Coleman v. State, 283 Ark. 359, 676 S.W.2d 736 [1984]. The evidence must present proof so that the finding does not rest on conjecture. Rode v. State, 274 Ark. 410, 625 S.W......
-
Altes v. State
...conviction. Boone v. State, 282 Ark. 274, 668 S.W.2d 17 (1984). Circumstantial evidence can be substantial evidence. Coleman v. State, 283 Ark. 359, 676 S.W.2d 736 (1983). The evidence must present proof so that the finding does not rest on conjecture. Rode v. State, 274 Ark. 410, 625 S.W.2......
-
Wrongful discharge
...3-45 Wrongful Discharge §3:12 retaliation cases (hereinafter “Chapter 451 claims”) should be used as a guide for Sabine Pilot cases. 676 S.W.2d at 736 (concurrence, Kilgarlin, J.). One court has heeded his advice and upheld a jury finding that applied Chapter 451-type damages in a Sabine Pi......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...damages in workers’ compensation retaliation cases (hereinafter “Chapter 451 claims”) should be used as a guide for Sabine Pilot cases. 676 S.W.2d at 736 (concurrence, Kilgarlin, J.). One court has heeded his advice and upheld a jury finding that applied Chapter 451-type damages in a Sabine......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...damages in workers’ compensation retaliation cases (hereinafter “Chapter 451 claims”) should be used as a guide for Sabine Pilot cases. 676 S.W.2d at 736 (concurrence, Kilgarlin, J.). One court has heeded his advice and upheld a jury finding that applied Chapter 451-type damages in a Sabine......
-
Wrongful Discharge
...damages in workers’ compensation retaliation cases (hereinafter “Chapter 451 claims”) should be used as a guide for Sabine Pilot cases. 676 S.W.2d at 736 (concurrence, Kilgarlin, J.). One court has heeded his advice and upheld a jury finding that applied Chapter 451-type damages in a Sabine......