McCraw v. State, CA
| Decision Date | 13 April 1988 |
| Docket Number | CR-87-187,No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 748 S.W.2d 36,24 Ark.App. 48 |
| Parties | Angela Diane McCRAW, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Jeff Rosenzweig, Little Rock, for appellant.
R.B. Friedlander, Sol. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
This case comes to us from Pulaski County Circuit Court, First Division. Appellant, Angela Diane McCraw, appeals her conviction of intimidating a witness, a violation of Arkansas Statutes Annotated § 41-2609 (Repl.1977). We affirm.
On September 2, 1986, a felony information was filed charging appellant and James Eddy McCraw with intimidating a witness. The State alleged that on or about July 9, 1986, the appellant and James McCraw did unlawfully, feloniously, threaten LaDonna Peek and Lester Wood, persons they believed may be called as witnesses in a criminal proceeding against Rick McCraw and James McCraw, with the purpose of influencing their testimony and/or intimidating them to avoid legal process summoning them to testify. The appellant pled not guilty. A jury trial being waived, appellant was tried before the court on March 23, 1987. Appellant was found not guilty of intimidating Peek, who did not testify at trial and guilty of intimidating Woods, who did testify. Appellant was sentenced to ten (10) years with imposition of sentence suspended for all but ninety (90) days in the Pulaski County Jail, conditioned upon compliance with written rules of conduct. The written rules required that appellant
For reversal, appellant argues the conviction should be reversed because (1) it is based upon an inaccurate recollection of evidence by the trial court and (2) even an accurate recollection of the testimony is legally insufficient to sustain the judgment.
The Arkansas Supreme Court's decision in Harris v. State, 284 Ark. 247, 681 S.W.2d 334 (1984), requires that, where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal of a criminal conviction, we must review the sufficiency of the evidence prior to consideration of trial errors. Upon this basis, we will address appellant's second point for reversal first.
Appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to sustain the court's judgment of guilty of intimidating a witness in violation of Arkansas Statutes Annotated § 41-2609, which provides in pertinent part:
(1) A person commits the offense of intimidating a witness if he threatens a witness or a person he believes may be called as a witness with the purpose of:
(a) influencing the testimony of that person; or
(b) inducing that person to avoid legal process summoning him to testify;
To satisfy this statute, the State had to prove that appellant threatened Wood. Arkansas Statutes Annotated § 41-2601(6) (Repl.1977) defines threat as a menace, however communicated, to use physical force against any person; or harm substantially any person with respect to his property, health, safety, business, calling, career, financial condition, reputation, or personal relationship.
Viewed in the light most favorable to appellee, the evidence in the present case reveals that the State called one witness, Lester Wood, who was previously subpoenaed to testify in a criminal proceeding against Rick and James McCraw, brothers of appellant. Wood testified that he received a call from James McCraw threatening to kill him if he testified in the proceeding against the McCraw brothers. Wood then testified that a few days later, appellant came to his uncle's trailer where he was staying and asked the whereabouts of Peek. The testimony elicited from Wood by the prosecutor regarding the alleged intimidation by appellant is as follows:
Q. We're simply here to determine what, if anything, Angie did, so just stick with what she did. Angie said what?
A. That she was after LaDonna Peek, that she was gonna whip her butt.
Q. Those are her exact words or the best you remember?
A. The exact I can remember.
Q. And what did you say?
A. Well, then she said if I--she exactly repeated what James told me sooner, you know, earlier, that if I testified that they was gonna come after me.
Wood also testified that "in a way" he felt like something could have been done to him.
Appellant agreed that she went to the trailer; however, she...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Williams v. State, CA
...conviction, the appellate court must review the sufficiency of the evidence prior to consideration of trial errors. McCraw v. State, 24 Ark.App. 48, 748 S.W.2d 36 (1988). However, the defendant must raise the issue of sufficiency of the evidence to the trial court. Appellant failed to move ......
-
Muhammed v. State
...the appellate court is required to review the sufficiency of the evidence prior to considerations of trial errors. McCraw v. State, 24 Ark.App. 48, 748 S.W.2d 36 (1988). This court considers the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and if there is substantial evidence to sup......
-
Johnson v. State, CA
...Because the appellate court must review the sufficiency of the evidence prior to consideration of trial errors, McCraw v. State, 24 Ark.App. 48, 748 S.W.2d 36 (1988), we must first address appellant's final Appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence as to proof that Officer Burch ......
-
Neble v. State, CA
...Because the appellate court must review the sufficiency of the evidence prior to consideration of trial errors, McCraw v. State, 24 Ark.App. 48, 748 S.W.2d 36 (1988), we first address appellant's final point. Appellant challenges only the sufficiency of the evidence as to proof that appella......