Connor v. State
| Docket Number | CR-22-42 |
| Decision Date | 05 October 2022 |
| Citation | 2022 Ark. App. 375,653 S.W.3d 37 |
| Parties | Joseph CONNOR, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Gregory Crain, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Walker H. Hawkins, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Joseph Connor appeals his conviction by a Grant County Circuit Court jury of one count of possession of a firearm by certain persons. Connor contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict and his motion to suppress statements made to his probation officer. We affirm the circuit court.
In February 2020, Connor was convicted of breaking or entering and theft of property (firearm), and he was sentenced to four years’ probation. In January 2021, the State charged Connor with possession of a firearm by certain persons after Connor's probation officer found a muzzleloader in the storage shed in which Connor had been sleeping. The State later amended the criminal information to charge Connor as a habitual offender.
The day before Connor's jury trial was scheduled to begin, the circuit court convened a Denno hearing.1 Officer Kerri McBroome, Connor's probation officer, was the only witness. McBroome testified that Connor had an appointment with her on 10 December 2020. During that visit, they discussed Connor's living arrangements, and Connor said that he was staying in a red shop on his family's property. McBroome showed Connor a photograph of him holding a firearm; he said that it belonged to a friend, and it was at that friend's house. McBroome reminded Connor that the conditions of his probation prohibited him from being in possession of a firearm or in the company of anyone possessing a firearm, and he said he understood. He answered no when asked whether there were any firearms, drugs, or other illegal items in the shop he was staying in. McBroome advised him that officers would be conducting a search of the shop to validate this information, and she, Connor, and several other officers traveled to his family's property. As she and Agent Eddie Keathley entered the red shop, Connor "pointed to the back wall and said that there was a gun on the back wall behind some jars that he had forgot about." Keathley looked where Connor had indicated, moved the jars aside, and took possession of a firearm.
At the jury trial, McBroome presented testimony as described above and also provided more detail. For instance, McBroome said that when she entered the shop, she immediately noticed a cot and observed a stack of mail on the cot; several pieces of mail had Connor's name on them. She also described the weapon retrieved by Keathley as a .54-caliber Renegade muzzleloader. On cross-examination, McBroome confirmed that Connor had not been free to leave after he was told that officers intended to search the shop.
Agent Keathley testified that he assisted McBroome in searching a residence on 10 December 2020. He said that as he and McBroome entered the shop, Connor stated, On cross-examination, Keathley explained that a muzzleloader is considered a rifle, "it just shoots a different round." He said he had not test-fired that particular rifle and was "assuming" it worked. He also stated that it did not have a striker and that he did not know if the firing mechanism worked.
The State rested after these two witnesses, and the defense moved for directed verdict on two bases. Defense counsel stated, at which point the court interrupted and ruled, Defense counsel then asserted that the State had failed to prove Connor had actual or constructive possession of the muzzleloader or that he had the authority to exercise dominion, control, or management over the muzzleloader. The court again ruled that it was a factual issue for the jury to determine and denied the motion.
For the defense, Samantha Harrington, Connor's aunt, testified to the following. Harrington and her husband own the red shop that Connor had been sleeping in, but Connor had been staying at his dad's house, not the shop, for two weeks before the officers searched the shop. The muzzleloader belongs to her husband, who owns several firearms, and she and her husband cleaned out the shed and thought they had removed all the firearms before Connor started sleeping there. She was aware that Connor could not be around firearms. Connor's father, Byron Connor, testified and confirmed that Connor had been staying with him since November 29.
The motions for directed verdict were renewed and denied. The jury found Connor guilty, and he was sentenced to twelve months’ imprisonment. This timely appeal followed.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Kirkland v. State , 2021 Ark. App. 56, 618 S.W.3d 167. We affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Id. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Daniels v. State , 2018 Ark. App. 334, 551 S.W.3d 428. Weighing the evidence, reconciling conflicts in the testimony, and assessing credibility are all matters exclusively for the trier of fact, in this case the jury. Holland v. State , 2017 Ark. App. 49, 510 S.W.3d 311.
A firearm is defined as a "device designed, made, or adapted to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive or any device readily convertible to that use." Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-102(6)(A) (Supp. 2021). Connor asserts that there was no testimony that the muzzleloader in question meets that definition, and in the absence of such testimony, the jury was left to speculation and conjecture "as to what a muzzle loader does." He cites State v. Weeks , 202 So.3d 1 (Fla. 2016), to support his contention that "antique firearms and replica antique firearms are exempt from the firearms statutes" and that "felons are entitled to the exemption."
The State responds that this argument is not preserved for appellate review because Connor's directed-verdict motion failed to identify the specific grounds on which the evidence was allegedly deficient. Instead, the motion merely recited the statutory definition of a firearm. And while Connor may claim his motion was cut short by the circuit court, it was still his burden to make and provide a record sufficient to demonstrate error. Alternatively, the State contends that the evidence at trial overwhelmingly established that the muzzleloader in question was, at the very least, designed to expel a projectile by the action of an explosive, which meets the definition of a firearm. Further, Connor himself referred to the muzzleloader as a "gun" or a "rifle" according to the State's evidence.
We hold that Connor's argument on this point is preserved for our review. His motion was not merely based on the statutory definition of a firearm; he also said, "there's been no testimony that—" before the circuit court interrupted and ruled on the motion. It is clear from the exchange that his argument was that the State failed to prove the muzzleloader fit the definition of a firearm. We note, however, that Connor's argument on appeal is barely developed, and he failed to provide a citation to the statutory definition of a firearm.
That being said, we hold that the State presented substantial evidence that the muzzleloader is a firearm. Officer Keathley explained that it is a type of rifle, and whether it was currently operational is immaterial under the statute. Also, although Connor cites Florida caselaw about antique firearms, there was no evidence presented at trial about the muzzleloader's status as an antique.
Connor also presents an argument in reference to possession of the muzzleloader. His...
To continue reading
Request your trial