Joiner v. State, CACR08-151 (Ark. App. 6/18/2008)

• Decision Date: 18 June 2008
• Docket Number: CACR08-151
• Parties: Shequita L. JOINER, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

Page 1

Shequita L. JOINER, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

CACR08-151

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Division II

Opinion Delivered June 18, 2008

Appeal from the Columbia County Circuit Court; No. [CR-06-211-5], Honorable Larry W. Chandler, Judge.

Affirmed.

DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge.

Appellant, Shequita Joiner, was convicted by a Columbia County jury of aggravated robbery and theft of property. She was sentenced to thirty years in the Arkansas Department of Correction for aggravated robbery and to ten years for theft of property, with the sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, Joiner only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motions for directed verdict because the State's witnesses offered contradictory evidence. We affirm.

In Navarro v. State, 371 Ark. 179, 186-87, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (2007) (citations omitted), our supreme court set forth the well-settled standard of review for challenging the sufficiency of the evidence:

We treat a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. This court has repeatedly held that in reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. We affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Furthermore, circumstantial evidence may provide a basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Whether the evidence excludes every other hypothesis is left to the jury to decide. The credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury and not the court. The trier of fact is free to believe all or part of any witness's testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence.

At the close of the State's case, Joiner moved for a directed verdict, stating that "all of the testimony of the State's witnesses, as taken together, even without any type of defense being put on, it is impossible that all of the State's witnesses are telling the truth. Every one of the State's witnesses, other than the law enforcement officers, have given contradictory testimony either as to what the Defendant had stated, allegedly stated to various individuals, as to who was present when the statements were given, as to the circumstances surrounding the robbery and the theft.... The Defense would state that given the contradictions from all the witnesses, that as a matter of law, that the Defense is entitled to a Directed Verdict of acquittal as to both charges." Joiner renewed her motion for directed verdict at the close of the case, stating, "After reviewing our motion based on both the arguments we had made earlier after the conclusion of the State's case, but also adding additional evidence; that the Defendant's testified to not having any involvement in these crimes with the supportive testimony of her...