Lockhart v. State

• Decision Date: 03 June 2010
• Docket Number: No. CR 09–1120.,CR 09–1120.
• Citation: 2010 Ark. 278,367 S.W.3d 530
• Parties: Melvin LOCKHART III, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2010 Ark. 278

367 S.W.3d 530

Melvin LOCKHART III, Appellant,

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. CR 09–1120.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

June 3, 2010.

Henry Law Firm, by: Adam L. Hopkins, Fayetteville, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Valerie Glover Fortner, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

RONALD L. SHEFFIELD, Justice.

Appellant Melvin Lockhart III was convicted by a Pulaski County jury of capital murder in the death of David Edward Jones. He was also convicted of theft of property. He was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction for the capital-murder conviction and sentenced to fifteen years for the theft-of-property conviction, with an enhancement of an additional fifteen years for the use of a firearm. These sentences were to be served consecutively. Lockhart now appeals, alleging two points of error: 1) the circuit court erred in refusing to grant his motion for a directed verdict; and 2) the circuit court erred in admitting evidence of prior bad acts over his objections, pursuant to Arkansas Rules of Evidence 404(b) and 403. Because Lockhart was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment, our jurisdiction is pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1–2(a)(2) (2010). We find no error and affirm.

On November 27, 2007, David Edward Jones was found slain in an industrial area of Little Rock with five gunshot wounds. There were no witnesses to the murder. Police investigators recovered .45 caliber shell casings at the scene where Jones was killed. Privately-owned surveillance cameras near the area captured images of a vehicle similar to the victim's gold-colored 2000 Mercury Grand Marquis driving away from the crime scene. One image from a surveillance camera showed the victim's vehicle driving by at approximately 9:08 p.m. An image from the surveillance camera of another business in the same area showed the victim's vehicle driving past its location at 9:17 p.m.

At Lockhart's trial, Benjamin Blunt and Leon Newton testified that, on the night of the Jones murder, Lockhart entered the auto body shop where they worked and held them at gunpoint attempting to rob them. Blunt described the gun as a .40 or .45 caliber pistol. The witnesses were able to get away from Lockhart. A 911 dispatcher received a call at 9:10 p.m. reporting the incident. The witnesses described the car in which Lockhart drove away as a gold Grand Marquis or a tan Crown Victoria. Newton testified that he saw two other passengers in the vehicle. They later identified the vehicle they saw as the one belonging to Jones.

Five days prior to Jones's murder, Ray Hart was robbed and murdered in his home, suffering a single gunshot wound to his head. Lockhart was placed at the scene of Hart's murder by three witnesses, one of whom participated in the robbery of Hart. The shell casing found at that crime scene matched the shell casings found at the Jones crime scene. The Arkansas State Crime Lab determined that the same .45 caliber pistol was used as the murder weapon in both crimes.

Lockhart was arrested and tried for the murder of David Jones and the theft of Jones's car. At a pretrial hearing, the State sought to introduce the evidence of the murder of Hart under a Rule 404(b) exception, as a prior bad act, to prove identity. Lockhart objected to the admission of this evidence, but the trial court overruled his objection and admitted the evidence. The jury convicted Lockhart of both the murder of Jones and the theft of property. He now appeals from his convictions.

For his first point on appeal, Lockhart contends that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the murder of Jones or the theft of Jones's car because the State failed to prove that he was the person who murdered Jones, and that the trial court should have granted his motion for a directed verdict. Specifically, Lockhart maintains that the introduction of Hart's murder into evidence only showed that he had access to a gun five days prior to the night of Jones's murder, but there were no witnesses who saw Lockhart with the murder weapon on that night. Furthermore, he argues that the testimony of Blunt and Newton actually provided an alibi for him because, by their testimony, the attempted robbery and subsequent 911 call occurred at approximately the same time as Jones's murder. The State counters that Lockhart did not preserve his motion for directed verdict for appellate review because he did not make a clear and specific objection at trial. Furthermore, the State contends that Lockhart did not raise an alibi defense during trial and is now barred from raising it on appeal. Alternatively, the State argues that there was sufficient evidence to convict Lockhart of both the murder of Jones and the theft of Jones's car.

On appeal, we treat a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Ellis v. State, 364 Ark. 538, 222 S.W.3d 192 (2006). The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial, supports the verdict. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient certainty and precision to compel a conclusion one way or another and pass beyond mere suspicion or conjecture. Id. Furthermore, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. Rounsaville v. State, 2009 Ark. 479, 346 S.W.3d 289. Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to support the finding of guilt in a criminal case, but it must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. Bennett v. State, 297 Ark. 115, 759 S.W.2d 799 (1988). In addition, the credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury and not the court. The fact-finder is free to believe all or part of the witness's testimony, and to resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. Rather than reweighing the evidence presented at trial, this court determines whether there is substantial evidence to support the lower court's findings. Freeman v. State, 331 Ark. 130, 959 S.W.2d 400 (1998). With regard to preserving a sufficiency challenge for appellate review, this court has stated that

[t]o preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge on appeal, a clear and specific motion for a directed verdict must be made to the trial court.... [T]he reasoning behind this rule is “that when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the circuit court can either grant the motion, or, if justice requires, allow the State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof.”

Elkins v. State, 374 Ark. 399, 402, 288 S.W.3d 570, 573 (2008) (quoting Pinell v. State, 364 Ark. 353, 357, 219 S.W.3d 168, 171 (2005)).

Under Ark.Code Ann. § 5–10–101, a person commits capital murder if “with premeditated and deliberate purpose of causing the death of another person, the person causes the death of any person.” Ark.Code Ann. § 5–10–101(a)(4) (Supp.2009). Furthermore, a person acts purposely when it is “the person's conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause that result.” Ark.Code Ann. § 5–2–202(1) (Supp.2009). With regard to property offenses, a theft of property occurs when “a person takes or exercises unauthorized control over the property of another person with the purpose of depriving the owner of property.” Ark.Code Ann. § 5–36–103(a)(1) (Supp.2010).

In the case at hand, Lockhart argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him of the murder of David Jones or the theft of Jones's vehicle. He maintains that because Blunt and Newton placed him at the scene of an attempted robbery at 3822 Mabelvale Pike Road at 9:10 p.m., it could not have been him driving Jones's vehicle at 9:08 in an industrial park near 23rd and Commercial Streets, the scene of Jones's murder, as captured by the surveillance cameras. With regard to a possible alibi, this issue was not raised at trial when Lockhart moved for a directed verdict and cannot now be raised for the first time on appeal. See Johnson v. State, 318 Ark. 425, 886 S.W.2d 584 (1994). As to Lockhart's claim that there was insufficient evidence of his identity as the murderer, the State argues that Lockhart failed to object with specificity as to why the court should have granted his motion for directed verdict. At trial, however, Lockhart stated that the State failed to meet its burden of proof in showing that he “was the one who committed Capital Murder, feloniously, with a premeditated and deliberate purpose of causing the death of another person.” His motion for directed verdict was, therefore, sufficiently specific so as to preserve it for appeal.

The following evidence is sufficient to support his conviction. Jacob Rice, an employee of Magna IV Printing, testified that he saw a vehicle drive by his business, which was located near a Federal Express store in the same industrial park. A few moments later, he heard gunshots and then saw the same car drive quickly back past him. Surveillance video from the Federal Express store showed Jones's vehicle driving by after the shooting. Jones's vehicle was also identified by witnesses Benjamin Blunt and Leon Newton as the vehicle driven by Lockhart when he attempted to rob them. Furthermore, both witnesses testified that Lockhart was in possession of a handgun because he drew it when he entered Blunt's place of work and demanded money. The gun was identified as a .40 or .45 caliber pistol.

Also relevant are the details of the murder of Ray Hart. Lockhart, Toni Boggs, and two of Lockhart's relatives drove to Hart's trailer with the intent to rob him. Boggs and Lockhart went into the trailer and stole Hart's wallet. Boggs left the mobile home and Lockhart was left alone with Hart. The witnesses testified that Lockhart was alone with the victim when they heard a gunshot, after which he came out of the trailer, he got in the car, and they drove off. The Arkansas State...