Farris v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 09 March 1992 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 826 S.W.2d 241,308 Ark. 561 |
| Parties | Carl FARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 91-202. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, Thomas B. Devine, III, Kim Crawford, Deputy Public Defenders, Little Rock, for appellant.
Sandy Moll, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant Carl Farris was convicted of capital murder, first degree battery and kidnapping, resulting in a sentence of life without parole. By this appeal, involving only the capital murder count, Farris argues two points of error: There was no evidence of premeditation and insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of capital murder. We affirm the judgment of conviction and for purposes of discussion, treat the two points as one.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence we consider the evidence in a light most favorable to the appellee and affirm if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. Williams v. State, 298 Ark. 484, 768 S.W.2d 539 (1989). The evidence is substantial if it is of sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture. Gomez v. State, 305 Ark. 496, 809 S.W.2d 809 (1991). We review only the evidence that supports the conviction and do not weigh it against other conflicting proof favorable to the accused. Ricketts v. State, 292 Ark. 256, 729 S.W.2d 400 (1987).
A person commits capital murder, as defined in Ark.Code Ann. § 5-10-101(a)(4) (1987), if:
[w]ith the premeditated and deliberated purpose of causing the death of another person, he causes the death of any person.
Premeditation and deliberation may be inferred from the circumstances of the case. Smith v. State, 306 Ark. 483, 815 S.W.2d 922 (1991). Such circumstances include the character of the weapon used, the manner in which the weapon was used, the nature of the wounds inflicted and the conduct of the accused. Id.
Because there is no direct evidence of appellant's guilt we recount the facts in some detail. Frank Givan, a friend of the victim, Danny Hull, testified that appellant was at the Hull home on the afternoon and evening of the murder. He said Hull was working on appellant's truck and the three men were drinking. Hull had a gun in his possession and he produced it for the appellant to examine. The appellant, Hull and Givan rode around for awhile and when they returned Tim McAlister drove up. Givan last saw Danny Hull, McAlister and appellant around 8:30 p.m. at Hull's house. When McAlister left shortly after Frank Givan, Danny Hull and the appellant were still there.
Little Rock Police Officer Richard Kindervater was called at approximately 9:20 p.m. to investigate a shooting at the Hull residence. He found Danny Hull lying face down in the backyard between the car and the house and Teresa Hull, Danny's wife, shot in the hand. Officer Kindervater was given a description of the suspect and secured the crime scene.
Sergeant Danny Burnett testified that he was called to the crime scene. He was given a description of the suspect and told to go to the hospital to take a statement from Teresa Hull. As he was driving to the hospital he saw a man fitting the description of the suspect. He took the suspect into custody and could see blood on his clothing and face.
Ronnie Smith, a homicide investigator for the Litle Rock Police Department, testified that as lead investigator he surveyed the crime scene, interviewed witnesses and collected blood samples from Danny Hull, the appellant and Teresa Hull. He testified that Danny Hull was lying on the ground and his shirt was pulled over his head as if someone had dragged him. Officer Smith described appellant as having blood on his clothing, face and right hand. Smith sent appellant's clothing to the crime lab for analysis. Officer Smith testified that he performed a gunshot test on the appellant and took his fingerprints the night of the murder and sent them to the crime lab. Smith testified the murder weapon, a .22 Remington, was found approximately a block from the crime scene and it had been thrown through a church window.
Dr. Fahmy Malak explained the results of the autopsy he conducted on Danny Hull. Hull's hands were coated with grease and mud and Hull had been shot three times from behind: Once in the left shoulder, once in the back of the head, and once in the neck. Bullets were retrieved from the head and larynx. Dr. Malak confirmed that Hull's death was attributable to either the wound to the head or the neck.
Berwin Moore, firearms and explosive analyst for the Arkansas Crime Lab, testified that he test-fired the murder weapon and collected the bullets. The samples matched the bullets removed from the victim's head and neck.
Lisa Sakevicius of the Arkansas State Crime Lab analyzed the gunshot residue kit, reflecting that appellant either discharged a firearm, was in close proximity to the discharge of a firearm or handled a recently discharged firearm.
Barbara Polite, a...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashe v. State
...it against other evidence favorable to the accused. Key v. State, 325 Ark. 73, 76, 923 S.W.2d 865 867-68 (1996); Farris v. State, 308 Ark. 561, 826 S.W.2d 241 (1992). Circumstantial evidence alone may constitute substantial evidence when every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with inn......
-
Thornton v. State
...of premeditation in cases where the evidence showed that a victim was shot multiple times from behind. See, e.g., Farris v. State, 308 Ark. 561, 826 S.W.2d 241 (1992). Here, the State asked Dr. Erickson if it was possible that Turner was seated in a chair when the bullet entered the back of......
-
Wallace v. State
...of premeditation in cases where the evidence showed that a victim was shot multiple times from behind. See, e.g., Farris v. State, 308 Ark. 561, 565, 826 S.W.2d 241, 244 (1992). Other circumstances present at the crime scene support the jury's inference of premeditation and deliberation. Fo......
-
Stenhouse v. State
...been upheld in cases where the evidence showed that a victim was shot multiple times from behind. See id. (citing Farris v. State , 308 Ark. 561, 826 S.W.2d 241 (1992) ).Williams's subsequent statement recanting her testimony that Gray was unarmed does not establish that Gray's murder was j......