Gray v. State, CR
| Decision Date | 14 November 1994 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 318 Ark. 601,888 S.W.2d 302 |
| Parties | Betty Sue GRAY, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 94-803. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Robert N. Jeffrey, Sheridan, for appellant.
Gil Dudley, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Betty Sue Gray appeals her conviction for delivery of a controlled substance and contends that it was not supported by substantial evidence. There was substantial evidence of her guilt, and we affirm the judgment of conviction.
At the trial in April of 1994, an undercover agent and a confidential informant both testified that appellant sold crack cocaine to the agent in January of 1993. The agent and the informant, in describing the details of their meeting with appellant and purchasing the cocaine, differed in one detail. The confidential informant testified that he was in the agent's car when appellant sold the cocaine to the agent. The agent testified that this case was one of ten drug cases he was working in January 1993, but, according to his notes, the informant was not in the car at the time of the purchase. Appellant argues that the inconsistency in the testimony caused the evidence to be insufficient. She additionally argues that her identification was not sufficient because the police did not make a tape recording, photograph, or videotape of her selling the cocaine. Further, she contends the evidence is insufficient because the agent testified that he purchased the cocaine from someone named Sue Smith, not from appellant, Betty Sue Gray.
The trier of fact alone determines the weight to be given the evidence, and it may reject or accept any part of that evidence. Smith v. State, 308 Ark. 390, 824 S.W.2d 838 (1992). In determining the weight to be given the evidence, the trier of fact must resolve any inconsistencies in the testimony. McClure v. State, 314 Ark. 35, 858 S.W.2d 103 (1993). Even if the jury chose not to believe any of the informant's testimony, the proof could have been sufficient because the uncorroborated testimony of one state's witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Davis v. State, 284 Ark. 557, 683 S.W.2d 926 (1985). The inconsistency in the testimony does not cause the proof to be insufficient as a matter of law.
The undercover agent testified unequivocally that appellant was the person who sold him the cocaine and that he knew her as Sue Smith. We have held that unequivocal testimony identifying an accused as the offender is sufficient...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Prowell v. State, CR95-1007
...of one state's witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Galvin v. State, 323 Ark. 125, 912 S.W.2d 932 (1996); Gray v. State, 318 Ark. 601, 888 S.W.2d 302 (1994). Thus, the evidence is sufficient to sustain Prowell's 2. Suppression of identification testimony Prowell also asserts that ......
-
Plessy v. State
...in admitting testimony about victim's statement). 24.Fitch v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 663, 2011 WL 5176474 (citing Gray v. State, 318 Ark. 601, 888 S.W.2d 302 (1994)). 25.Id. (citing Butler v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 621, 2011 WL 4824300). 26.306 Ark. 193, 813 S.W.2d 249 (1991). 27.SeeArk. R. E......
-
Watkins v. State
...court has held that the uncorroborated testimony of one state's witness can be sufficient to sustain a conviction. Gray v. State, 318 Ark. 601, 602, 888 S.W.2d 302, 303 (1994) (citing Davis v. State, 284 Ark. 557, 683 S.W.2d 926 (1985)). In Gray, an undercover agent and a confidential infor......
-
Progressive Eldercare Services-Saline, Inc. v. Krauss
...immunity is on the party asserting it. Id. The trier of fact alone determines the weight to be given to the evidence. Gray v. State, 318 Ark. 601, 888 S.W.2d 302 (1994). The evidence before the circuit court presented several factors for the circuit court to consider in determining whether ......