Hagen v. State, No. CR
| Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
| Writing for the Court | NEWBERN |
| Citation | 318 Ark. 139,883 S.W.2d 832 |
| Docket Number | No. CR |
| Decision Date | 03 October 1994 |
| Parties | Daniel HAGEN, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 94-20. |
Page 832
v.
STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
Page 833
Claibourne C. Crews, Little Rock, for appellant.
Clint Miller, Acting Deputy Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
NEWBERN, Justice.
The appellant, Daniel Hagen, was convicted of first degree terroristic threatening (Ark.Code Ann. § 5-13-301), second degree battery (Ark.Code Ann. § 5-13-202), and attempted kidnapping (Ark.Code Ann. § 5-3-201) along with some other counts not involved in this appeal. The three relevant convictions arose from a single incident. Mr. Hagen contends his right not to be convicted more than once for the same conduct has been offended. We find no merit in the appeal and thus affirm.
Christina Alexander testified that, as she was walking toward her car in a parking lot after shopping in a supermarket, she noticed Mr. Hagen walking parallel to her. As she put her groceries[318 Ark. 140] in her car, she saw Mr. Hagen coming toward her. He asked her name and said he knew her. She told him he was mistaken, at which point he placed his arm across the car door. She demanded he get away from her car. He grabbed her hair and tried to bend her over to force her into her car. He put a gun to her side, and told her to get in the car or he would kill her.
Ms. Alexander resisted getting in the car and began to yell and fight with Mr. Hagen. He hit her in the face and head with the gun as they struggled in the parking lot. He left, and she returned to the store and reported the incident to the police.
At the close of the State's case in chief, Mr. Hagen moved to dismiss the terroristic threatening and battery charges on the double jeopardy ground. The motion was denied. He argues it should have been granted because the acts alleged in those counts were part of the attempted kidnapping. He contends it was all a "continuing course of conduct" that was prompted by a single impulse, the prosecution of which was prohibited by Ark.Code Ann. § 5-1-110(a) (Repl.1993) which provides in pertinent part:
When the same conduct of a defendant may establish the commission of more than one (1) offense, the defendant may be prosecuted for each such offense. He may not, however, be convicted of more than one offense if:
* * * * * *
(5) The conduct constitutes an offense defined as a continuing course of conduct and the defendant's course of conduct was uninterrupted, unless the law...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Rea v. State, No. CR–14–555
...punished separately, if the latter, there can be but one penalty.See Ricks v. State, 327 Ark. 513, 940 S.W.2d 422 (1997) ; Hagen v. State, 318 Ark. 139, 883 S.W.2d 832, 834 (1994) ; Rowe v. State, 271 Ark. 20, 607 S.W.2d 657 (1980). Both the United States Supreme Court and this court have m......
-
Brown v. State, No. CR 01-788.
...apprised of the proof that was overlooked. As a result, the trial court is not made aware of the deficiency. Walker, 318 Ark. at 108, 883 S.W.2d at 832 (citing Sanders v. State, 310 Ark. 510, 838 S.W.2d 359 (1992)). Thus, this court has made it clear that a defendant, in making his motions ......
-
Davis v. State, No. CR
...specify a basis for the motion, it will be insufficient to preserve a specific argument for appellate review." Walker, 318 Ark. at 109, 883 S.W.2d at 832. In so holding, this court reasoned that " 'when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the trial court can eith......
-
Webb v. State, No. CR
...bright line and hold that a motion for a directed verdict in a criminal case must state the specific ground of the motion." Id. at 109, 883 S.W.2d at 832. Appellant argues that his directed-verdict motion was sufficient in this case because it was obvious to the trial court that he was chal......
-
Rea v. State, No. CR–14–555
...punished separately, if the latter, there can be but one penalty.See Ricks v. State, 327 Ark. 513, 940 S.W.2d 422 (1997) ; Hagen v. State, 318 Ark. 139, 883 S.W.2d 832, 834 (1994) ; Rowe v. State, 271 Ark. 20, 607 S.W.2d 657 (1980). Both the United States Supreme Court and this court have m......
-
Brown v. State, No. CR 01-788.
...apprised of the proof that was overlooked. As a result, the trial court is not made aware of the deficiency. Walker, 318 Ark. at 108, 883 S.W.2d at 832 (citing Sanders v. State, 310 Ark. 510, 838 S.W.2d 359 (1992)). Thus, this court has made it clear that a defendant, in making his motions ......
-
Davis v. State, No. CR
...a basis for the motion, it will be insufficient to preserve a specific argument for appellate review." Walker, 318 Ark. at 109, 883 S.W.2d at 832. In so holding, this court reasoned that " 'when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the trial court can ei......
-
Webb v. State, No. CR
...line and hold that a motion for a directed verdict in a criminal case must state the specific ground of the motion." Id. at 109, 883 S.W.2d at 832. Appellant argues that his directed-verdict motion was sufficient in this case because it was obvious to the trial court that he was challe......