King v. State

• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals
• Writing for the Court: RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
• Decision Date: 22 September 2021
• Docket Number: CR-20-604
• Citation: King v. State, CR-20-604 (Ark. App. Sep 22, 2021)
• Parties: EDDIE DALE KING APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

2021 Ark.App. 339

EDDIE DALE KING APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE

No. CR-20-604

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II

September 22, 2021

APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 35CR-18-595] HONORABLE ALEX GUYNN, JUDGE

Brian G. Brooks, Attorney at Law, PLLC, by: Brian G. Brooks, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Jason Michael Johnson Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Appellant Eddie Dale King was convicted by a Jefferson County Circuit Court jury of two counts of first-degree battery. His convictions stem from King's brutal attack of Carol and Chester Deubel in their home. Following the jury's recommendation, the circuit court imposed twenty-five-year sentences for each conviction and ordered that the sentences be served consecutively for an aggregate term of fifty years' imprisonment. King's sole point on appeal challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence established the following facts. The Deubels moved to Arkansas from Arizona to retire. On October 9, 2018, King, a local handyman, came to their home. While talking to Carol "[s]omething set [King] off," and he violently attacked her.

Carol screamed, and Chester, standing nearby, turned around to see King dragging her backward in a chokehold. As Carol bit King's arm because "she did [not] have anything to do but bite him," Chester rushed to her defense, lunging at King, and King struck Chester with the "hammer in [his] hand." Carol blacked out after King threw her down; when she regained consciousness, she witnessed King beating Chester with a hammer. Carol ran at King and jumped on his back, but King struck her in the head with the hammer four times and dragged her away from Chester breaking two of her fingers and six of her ribs in the process.

King continued to beat Chester with a hammer. Carol testified that "[i]f [she had] ever seen the devil, [she] saw it in [King's] eyes that day." Seeing King run toward her "with the hammer as high up in the air as he could possibly get it," Carol thought, "Lord, I know I'm going to die." King's attack ended just as quickly as it had begun, however, when King got in his truck and drove away.

Steven Griego, a Dish Network technician with no connection to King or the Deubels, witnessed the attack. According to Griego King placed Carol in a guillotine-style chokehold. As Chester ran to Carol's aid, Griego saw King swinging at the elderly man and "blood just shooting" from his head.

Due to the severity of the injuries King inflicted, Chester underwent emergency surgery, including surgery to remove the piece of skull lodged in his brain by King's attack. Chester remained in the hospital for ten days before being transferred to a rehabilitation center for several weeks. Although Carol did not require emergency surgery, she still suffered substantial injuries. Because King's attack left Chester with a piece of his skull lodged in his brain, a wound in the upper left part of his skull, and another on his chest; and Carol with four head wounds, two broken fingers, six broken ribs and significant swelling of her hand, the State charged King with two counts of first-degree battery. A jury trial was held on August 26 and 27, 2019, and King was convicted of both counts of first-degree battery.

On appeal, King challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions. He does not deny that he inflicted serious physical injury on the Deubels but claims that the State failed to prove that he inflicted those injuries under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to human life.

When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged in a criminal conviction, our court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and considers only the evidence supporting it. Adkins v. State, 371 Ark. 159, 264 S.W.3d 523 (2007). We will affirm if the finding of guilt is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence of such sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Fernandez v. State, 2010 Ark. 148, 362 S.W.3d 905.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we do not reweigh the evidence or assess the credibility of the witnesses. Turner v. State, 2019 Ark.App. 476, at 5 588 S.W.3d 375, 378. It is the jury's role as the finder of fact to resolve questions of inconsistent evidence and conflicting testimony, and the jury is free to believe the State's version of the facts over the defendant's account. Id. The...