Gregory Jr. v. State

Decision Date04 May 2000
Docket Number99-820
Citation15 S.W.3d 690
PartiesHouston GREGORY, Jr v. STATE of Arkansas CR 99-820 ___ S.W.3d ___ Opinion delivered
CourtArkansas Supreme Court

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; David Bogard, Judge; affirmed.

1. Evidence -- motion for directed verdict -- substantial evidence defined. -- A directed-verdict motion is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence; when an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, that issue is addressed prior to all others; the test for determining sufficiency of the evidence is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict; 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; the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State; only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered.

2. Evidence -- circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial evidence. -- A conviction must be supported by substantial evidence; however, circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial evidence; guilt can be established without eyewitness testimony, and evidence of guilt is not less because it is circumstantial; a criminal defendant's intent or state of mind is rarely capable of proof by direct evidence and must usually be inferred from the circumstances of the crime; whether the evidence is direct or circumstantial, however, it must still meet the requirement of substantiality; it must force the fact finder to reach a conclusion one way or the other without resorting to speculation or conjecture

3. Evidence -- use of circumstantial evidence -- duty of jury. --In a case depending upon circumstantial evidence the circumstances relied upon must be so connected and cogent as to show guilt to a moral certainty, and must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused; circumstances, however strong they may be, ought never to coerce the mind of the jury to a conclusion of guilt if they can be reconciled with the theory that one other than the defendant has committed the crime, or that no crime has been committed at all; once a trial court determines that the evidence is sufficient to go to the jury, the question of whether the circumstantial evidence excludes every hypothesis consistent with innocence is for the jury to decide.

4. Evidence -- verdict based on circumstantial evidence -- when set aside. -- Upon review, the supreme court determines whether the jury resorted to speculation and conjecture in reaching its verdict; two equally reasonable conclusions as to what occurred merely gives rise to a suspicion of guilt; the supreme court will set aside a judgment based upon evidence that did not meet the required standards, and thus left the fact finder only to speculation and conjecture.

5. Evidence -- false statements. -- False and improbable statements may be admissible as proof of guilt.

6. Evidence -- circumstantial evidence of guilt sufficient --conviction affirmed. -- Where appellant's own statement placed him at the murder scene on the night in question; where forensic evidence established that the victim was killed at that address; where the car that the victim was attempting to sell was recovered fifteen to twenty blocks from appellant's mother's home; where appellant's own statement placed him that weekend; where appellant's own statement put the car in his possession; where the victim's disappearance coincided with the failed car sale; and where appellant's explanation for the sale's failure lacked credibility, the evidence of appellant's guilt met the test of substantiality; it was of sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to conclude that appellant committed the crimes charged and thus passed well beyond suspicion or conjecture, and the evidence excludedevery other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the appellant; the trial court did not err in denying appellant's directed-verdict motions; affirmed. [cme]

Gregory E. Bryant, for appellant.

Mark Pryor, Att'y Gen., by: James R. Gowen, Jr., Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

Lavenski R. Smith, Justice.

Appellant Houston Gregory, Jr., appeals his convictions for capital murder, robbery, and theft from Pulaski County Circuit Court in connection with the death of Jimmy Ridenhour. Following the convictions, the jury imposed sentences of life without parole for capital murder, twenty-two years for robbery, and ten years for theft. Our jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(2). On appeal, appellant challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict. We find no error and affirm.

Facts

In February 1996, Ridenhour worked at a Little Rock AutoZone parts store with Justin Hunt. Aside from work, the two were friends, and spent time together on weekends. According to Hunt, Ridenhour agreed to sell Hunt's gray 1987 Ford Mustang for a $100.00 commission. Ridenhour found a prospective buyer in Gregory. On February 23, 1996, during Ridenhour's lunch break at about 6:00 p.m., Ridenhour drove Hunt's Mustang to420 West 22nd Street in North Little Rock to meet Gregory and discuss the sale. Hunt and Hunt's friend Andrew Pearlman followed in Pearlman's truck. Ridenhour and Hunt hoped to complete the sale during Ridenhour's break. Ridenhour pulled into the driveway of the home and went to the door. Hunt and Pearlman waited in their truck at the curb. Hunt testified that when they first got to Gregory's house, an occupant of the house told Ridenhour that Gregory was not home, so they drove both vehicles to a fast-food restaurant to eat. The occupant of the home was later identified as Eric Lamont Ticey. Upon their return, Ridenhour pulled up into the driveway at the residence. Ridenhour went inside and shortly thereafter came back out. He then told Hunt and Pearlman that the occupants of the house didn't want "some white guy's truck"parked in front of their house. By this time, appellant had arrived and was in the house with Ticey. Hunt and Pearlman moved their truck to a nearby parking lot and waited. They were about a block away as darkness approached. Hunt recalled that a tree partially obstructed their view of the house. Although the tree limited full view, Hunt and Pearlman did see two people come out of the house, get in the Mustang, and leave. However, they were unable to identify either of them as Ridenhour. About thirty minutes later, the car returned, and the driver backed it down the side of the house. After about ten minutes, the Mustang was driven away again and did not return. Hunt and Pearlman waited for about another half hour, and then drove past the house, and around the area, but did not find the car or Ridenhour. They then returned to the AutoZone to see if perhaps Ridenhour had returned there, but he had not returned. Hunt and Pearlman then went to the police, and reported the incident. They also informed Ridenhour's wife Sonja. Sonja testified her husband failed to call her from work that evening, as was his custom. She also testified that he was due to get off work at 9:00 p.m., and did not come home that night as expected. Sonja further testified that he had come home late only twice in the almost eight years they had known each other. No one saw Ridenhour again alive.

On February 29, 1996, police found the Mustang abandoned at a MacDonald's restaurant fifteen to twenty blocks from Gregory's mother's house. Apparently, the car's interior had been wiped down and all fingerprint evidence erased. On March 4, 1996, while looking for stolen property, the sheriff's department discovered Ridenhour's body in an abandoned house one block from Gregory's sister's home. Ridenhour appeared to have been beaten and strangled. The body was partially clothed with a handcuff on one wrist. Police searched the residence at 420 West 22nd Street and found blood on the carpet and on a door-jamb to the bathroom. They also found a shotgun with blood on it.

Police questioned Gregory on February 27, 1996, and on March 6, 1996. He acknowledged Ridenhour had come to his residence, and that he had arranged to meet with him there. He asserted that Ridenhour could not find the car title on the car and so `pawned' the car to Gregory for a few days for $40.00, so Gregory could try it out. Gregory also stated that after giving Ridenhour the $40.00, Ridenhour got in a small white car with two men and left. He then stated he used the car until February 24, 1996, when he again met Ridenhour and returned the car to him.

Approximately one year later on February 28, 1997, the prosecuting attorney filed a three-count felony information against Gregory charging him with capital murder, aggravated robbery, and theft of property. On March 11, 1997, the sheriff arrested Gregory pursuant to a bench warrant. Pulaski Circuit Court tried Gregory before a jury on February 9, 1999. He moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State's case and again at the close of all the evidence, based upon failure to identify him as the perpetrator of the charged crimes. The trial court denied both motions. The jury convicted him on all counts. Gregory timely filed his notice of appeal. On appeal, as noted, Gregory raises the single issue of sufficiency of the evidence.

Sufficiency of the Evidence

A directed-verdict motion is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. McDole v. State, 339 Ark. 391, 6 S.W.3d 74 (1999); Ayers v. State, 334 Ark. 258, 975 S.W.2d 88 (1998). When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we address the issue prior to all others. Byrd v. State, 337 Ark. 413, 992 S.W.2d 759 (1999). The test for determining sufficiency of the evidence is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Evidence is substantial if it is of sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and...

To continue reading

Request your trial
55 cases
  • Green v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • January 16, 2014
    ... ...         This court has jurisdiction pursuant to Ark. Sup.Ct. R. 12(a)(2) (2013). We find no error and affirm.          A summary of the facts is as follows. On July 30, 1998, Lisa Elliott and her six-year-old son, Gregory, were found dead at their home in Dalton, Arkansas. Both had been killed by multiple sharp-force and blunt-force injuries. At that time, Lisa's husband, Carl Elliott, and their eight-year-old daughter, Felicia, were missing. On August 1, 1998, Carl's body was found floating in the Eleven Point ... ...
  • Howard v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 9, 2002
    ... ... Phillips, supra. Additionally, the longstanding rule in the use of circumstantial evidence is that the evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused to be substantial, and whether it does is a question for the jury. Gregory v. State, 341 Ark. 243, 15 S.W.3d 690 (2000) ...         The jury may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence and may choose to believe the State's account of the facts rather than the defendant's. Chapman v. State, 343 Ark. 643, 38 S.W.3d 305 (2001); ... ...
  • Howard v. State
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • May 9, 2002
    ... ... Phillips, supra. Additionally, the longstanding rule in the use of circumstantial evidence is that the evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused to be substantial, and whether it does is a question for the jury. Gregory v. State, 341 Ark. 243, 15 S.W.3d 690 (2000) ... The jury may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence and may choose to believe the State's account of the facts rather than the defendant's. Chapman v. State, 343 Ark. 643, 38 S.W.3d 305 (2001); Bell v. State, 334 Ark ... ...
  • Holder v. State, CR 03-3.
    • United States
    • Arkansas Supreme Court
    • October 9, 2003
    ... ... Howard v. State, 348 Ark. 471, 79 S.W.3d 273; cert. denied, [537 U.S. 1051] 123 S.Ct. 606 [154 L.Ed.2d 528] (2002); Gregory v. State, 341 Ark. 243, 15 S.W.3d 690 (2000) ...          Edmond v. State, 351 Ark. 495, 501-02, 95 S.W.3d 789 (2003) ...         With this standard in mind, we conclude that there was substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict, although other trial errors require ... ...
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT