Harris v. State
| Decision Date | 05 February 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 331 Ark. 353,961 S.W.2d 737 |
| Parties | Derrick Lynell HARRIS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 97-582. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
John L. Kearney, Pine Bluff, for appellant.
Winston Bryant, Atty. Gen., Kent G. Holt, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant Derrick Harris was charged in the February 19, 1996, shooting death of Jimmy Gathings, a Monticello used-car dealer. At the time of the incident, appellant was fifteen years old. Appellant was charged as an accomplice to capital murder and aggravated robbery. The State alleged that, while committing or attempting to commit robbery and in the course and in furtherance of that offense, appellant caused the death of Mr. Gathings under circumstances that manifested extreme indifference to human life.
At trial, the State called several witnesses, including two witnesses, Albert Lambert, Jr., and Jerry Majors, who each testified that he saw two men leaving the victim's office immediately after hearing shots. Both witnesses identified appellant as one of these two men, and they testified that appellant was carrying a gun when they saw him leaving.
The jury convicted appellant of both charges. The trial court fixed appellant's sentence at life imprisonment without parole for the capital-murder conviction, and merged the aggravated-robbery conviction with it. From these convictions, appellant brings this appeal.
On appeal, appellant raises a single point of error. He claims that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. Appellant alleges that the State's evidence, particularly the testimony of Albert Lambert Jerry Majors, and the victim's nephew, was so conflicting that it was insufficient to sustain a jury verdict of guilty. We hold that the evidence was sufficient to go to the jury, and we affirm.
We treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Passley v. State, 323 Ark. 301, 305, 915 S.W.2d 248, 250 (1996). In reviewing a denial of a motion for a directed verdict, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and it is permissible to consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. Our test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Wilson v. State, 320 Ark. 707, 709, 898 S.W.2d 469, 470 (1995). Evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, is substantial if it is of sufficient force that it would compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond speculation and conjecture. Id. We will affirm if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. Id.
Looking at the testimony of the State's two eyewitnesses, Mr. Lambert and Mr. Majors, each witness testified unequivocally that, after hearing "pow" or "banging" sounds, he saw appellant leave the victim's office with a gun at his side. Appellant contends that these witnesses were biased and unreliable and that their testimony should be discounted; however, the jury clearly did not believe appellant's version of the facts. Appellant points to inconsistencies in the testimony on such issues as whether Mr. Majors saw him come out of the building or around the building; however, neither witness wavered in his identification of appellant.
We do not attempt to weigh the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hale v State
...is considered. McFarland v. State, supra. We will affirm if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. Harris v. State, 331 Ark. 353, 961 S.W.2d 737 (1998). As a threshold matter, Mr. Hale argues that this court should follow the standard of review set out by the United State......
-
Sewell v. Phillips Petroleum Co.
... ... Finally Texaco argues that the Sewell's have failed to state a claim for nuisance because nuisance will only lie as between the owners of two separate tracts not as between the owner of a tract of land and the ... ...
-
Harris v. State
...or her offense). Thus, he was sentenced to a mandatory term of life imprisonment without the possibility of parole. See Harris v. State , 331 Ark. 353, 961 S.W.2d 737 (1998) (affirming conviction and sentence).In 2012, the Supreme Court of the United States held that the Eighth Amendment pr......
-
Holland v. State
...of the testimony, rather than its admissibility, and the veracity of the witness's testimony was for the jury to assess. Hams v. State,331 Ark. 353, 961 S.W.2d 737 (1998)(observing that the resolution of issues of credibility and conflicting versions of facts rests with the trier of fact).1......