Kinsey v. State
Citation | 503 S.W.3d 772,2016 Ark. 393 |
Decision Date | 17 November 2016 |
Docket Number | No. CR–15–521,CR–15–521 |
Parties | Gregory Aaron KINSEY, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
Court | Supreme Court of Arkansas |
April Golden and Charlotte Aceituno Bogan, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., Little Rock, by: Adam Jackson, Ass't Att'y Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
On November 24, 2014, appellant, Gregory Aaron Kinsey, was convicted by a Sebastian County Circuit Court jury of one count of first-degree murder and one count of second-degree murder. Kinsey was sentenced to forty years and thirty years, respectively, to be served consecutively. Kinsey timely appealed and presents three points on appeal: (1) the circuit court erred in denying Kinsey's motion for a directed verdict because the State failed to negate his defense of justification; (2) the circuit court erred in refusing to instruct the jury as to the appropriate burden of proof on the defense of justification; and (3) the circuit court erred in finding that Kinsey opened the door to questions regarding Kinsey's past behavior.
On July 1, 2013, Kinsey was charged with two counts of capital murder in the June 26, 2013, deaths of Brandon Prince and Nathan Young. At trial, Nathan Maynard testified that he lived next door to Prince and across the street from Young in Fort Smith. Maynard testified that at around 9:00 p.m., Young knocked on his door and asked him if he wanted to come outside and drink a beer. Prince joined them on the porch. Maynard testified that at approximately 9:30 p.m., the three men noticed Kinsey squatting down in the alley adjacent to Young's house and was looking through Young's fence. Maynard further testified that Prince and Young approached Kinsey and Young asked Kinsey what he was doing. Maynard testified that Kinsey was carrying grocery bags, which Kinsey threw down, and told the men that he was "satan." Maynard testified that Kinsey then proceeded to pull out a machete. Maynard testified that he stepped off the porch and put down his beer, and that when he looked up he witnessed Kinsey strike Prince with the machete. He further testified that Kinsey then began striking Young with the machete. Maynard testified that Prince tried to run but only made it to the porch where he fell. When Young attempted to run, Kinsey chased him, struck him and continued striking Young with the machete while Young was on the ground. Maynard further testified that he grabbed a piece of wood, a two-by-four-inch board, and hit Kinsey with it. Maynard testified that after hitting Kinsey with the board, he threw the wood at Kinsey and fled.
Cole Prince, Prince's sixteen-year-old son, fifteen years old at the time of the crimes, also testified. Prince testified that he was visiting for Father's Day, heard his father's screams from outside, went outside to help his father and saw Kinsey. Prince testified that he took his two-year-old brother next door, grabbed a towel, and tried to stop his father's bleeding. Prince further testified that he saw Kinsey as soon as he opened the door, Kinsey was kneeling to pick up his bags and Prince heard Kinsey say "I shouldn't have done this."
Kinsey further stated According to Kinsey, one of the men said that he was not afraid of the knife. He said that the men "started hemming me in," and got close enough that "I felt their breath on me," and that Kinsey "started swinging" the machete. Kinsey remembered that he cut one of the men's arms with the first swing and stated:
Kinsey also stated that he could have left the men, but he pursued them. Finally, Kinsey stated that a third man, who was standing by the porch, hit him with a two-by-four-inch board during the fight—"it just bounced off and I ignored him."
Dr. Daniel Dye, the medical examiner, testified that Prince had been struck once and that the "chop wound" cut through the artery, which was "rapidly fatal." Dye further testified that Young was essentially hacked to death. Young sustained between eight and eleven blows, and the cause of death was multiple chop wounds. The jury convicted Kinsey as set forth above and this appeal followed.
We treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Whitt v. State , 365 Ark. 580, 232 S.W.3d 459 (2006). In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court assesses the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and considers only the evidence that supports the verdict. Tillman v. State , 364 Ark. 143, 217 S.W.3d 773 (2005). This court will affirm a judgment of conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence 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. Id. Finally, the credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury. Id. 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. Id.
With these standards in mind, we turn to Kinsey's first point on appeal. Kinsey's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions contends that the State failed to negate his defense of justification. Kinsey asserts that the State failed entirely to address his claim of self- defense: "The State did not offer any evidence disproving that Prince and Young were the aggressors." Kinsey also contends that any evidence that the State did present was not of sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture. The State responds that Kinsey's argument is not preserved for review, but further argues that Kinsey's convictions are supported by substantial evidence.
Prior to reaching the merits of Kinsey's first point on appeal, we must address the State's position that Kinsey failed to preserve the issue for review because Kinsey failed to address any specific deficiencies of State's proof in his motion below. The applicable statute is Ark. Code Ann. § 5–2–607, "Use of deadly physical force in defense of a person," which provides:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Johnson v. State
...absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Pickens v. State , 347 Ark. 904, 910, 69 S.W.3d 10, 14 (2002) ; see also Kinsey v. State , 2016 Ark. 393, 503 S.W.3d 772, reh'g denied (Jan. 5, 2017). The test for establishing motive, intent, or plan is whether the prior bad act has independent releva......
-
Harmon v. State
...We will not reverse a trial court's ruling on whether to submit a jury instruction absent an abuse of discretion. Kinsey v. State , 2016 Ark. 393, at 9, 503 S.W.3d 772, 778. A nonmodel jury instruction is to be given only when the model instruction does not correctly state the law or there ......
-
Gray v. State
...A circuit court's ruling on whether to submit a jury instruction will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Kinsey v. State , 2016 Ark. 393, 503 S.W.3d 772. At trial, in denying the defense's request to instruct the jury that Gray had no duty to retreat from his curtilage, the circ......
-
Reynolds v. State
...address the merits of an appellant's insufficiency argument where the directed-verdict motion is not specific." Kinsey v. State , 2016 Ark. 393, at 7–8, 503 S.W.3d 772, 777 ; Gillard v. State , 372 Ark. 98, 101, 270 S.W.3d 836, 838–39 (2008) ; Lewis v. State , 2017 Ark. App. 442, at 5, 528 ......