Meadows v. State
| Decision Date | 09 December 2004 |
| Docket Number | No. CR 04-331.,CR 04-331. |
| Citation | 199 S.W.3d 634 |
| Parties | Terese Marie MEADOWS, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Dudley & Compton, by: Cathleen V. Compton, Little Rock, for appellant.
Mike Beebe, Att'y Gen., by: Misty Wilson Borkowski, Ass't Att'y Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant Terese Marie Meadows appeals from an order of the Carroll County Circuit Court convicting her of capital murder, arson, and tampering with evidence and sentencing her to a term of life imprisonment without parole, ten years' imprisonment, and three years' imprisonment, respectively, to be served concurrently. Meadows argues on appeal that (1) the circuit court erred in denying her motion for directed verdict, because there was insufficient evidence to support her convictions for capital murder and arson; and (2) the circuit court erred in denying her motion for a mistrial, because the jury returned inconsistent verdicts regarding the offenses of capital murder and second-degree murder. Meadows's arguments are without merit, and we affirm.
The record reveals that on November 7, 2001, Lorraine "Lori" Pattison was in a trailer home in Carroll County that she had been sharing with Dale Meadows, Terese Meadows's estranged husband, when it caught fire and was destroyed. Dale Meadows was arrested and charged with capital murder and arson.1 Investigators received information that Terese "Tracy" Meadows had gone to the scene of the fire and attempted to remove the victim's body. Meadows admitted that she had done this and stated that she did so in an attempt to protect her husband, Dale Meadows. She also told police that Dale Meadows had killed Lori Pattison.
Later, law enforcement received information that Tracy Meadows had also been involved in Lori Pattison's death. Tracy Meadows was subsequently arrested and charged with premeditated capital murder and in the alternative with capital-felony murder with arson as the underlying felony. Meadows was also charged with arson and tampering with physical evidence. A jury trial was held on August 5-7, 2003. Following presentation of the State's evidence, Meadows moved for a directed verdict on the charges of capital-felony murder and arson, which the court denied. Thereafter, Meadows presented her case and then renewed her directed-verdict motions, which the circuit court again denied.
The State requested that the circuit court instruct the jury on first-degree and second-degree murder as lesser-included offenses of capital murder. Meadows's counsel objected to these instructions, because she reasoned that "if [the jury is] going to find her guilty of any homicide, it would be of capital murder and not anything that they might compromise on." The court overruled Meadows's objection and instructed the jury on the offenses of premeditated capital murder, capital-felony murder, first-degree murder, second-degree murder, and tampering with evidence. After administering the instructions, the judge and counsel engaged in the following conversation about an arson instruction:
Defense Counsel made no objection pertaining to the arson instruction.
After closing arguments, the judge sent the jury into deliberations. After some deliberation, the jury sent a note to the judge asking the following questions:
Are we supposed to decide?
1) Capitol [sic] Murder
2) Capitol [sic] Murder 1rst [sic] Degree
3) Capitol [sic] Murder 2nd Degree
One, Two, or Decide between all 3?
The court reinstructed the jury on all the instructions, including the following:
If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt on the charge of capital murder, you will then consider the charge of murder in the first degree. If you have a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt on the charge of murder in the first degree, you will consider the charge of murder in the second degree.
The jury returned verdicts finding Meadows guilty of capital murder, second-degree murder, arson, and tampering with physical evidence.
The prosecutor then stated to the court that sentencing Meadows to capital murder and second-degree murder was double jeopardy and suggested finding Meadows guilty of capital murder, the higher offense. Meadows's counsel stated she thought that "they've got inconsistent verdicts." The court polled each juror on whether his or her verdict was that Meadows was guilty of capital murder beyond a reasonable doubt. After all twelve jurors responded affirmatively, the court found that Meadows was guilty of capital murder. The court subsequently polled the jury on its findings of guilt for the offenses of arson and of tampering with evidence. Each juror again responded affirmatively for each verdict. The penalty phase of the trial commenced, and the court sent the jury to deliberate Meadows's sentences. It returned sentences for life imprisonment without parole for capital murder, ten years' imprisonment for arson, and three years' imprisonment for tampering with evidence.
After the sentencing phase was completed, Meadows's counsel moved for a declaration of a mistrial on account of inconsistent jury verdicts regarding the capital murder and second-degree murder convictions. The court postponed sentencing so that it could research the issue. On August 29, 2003, the court held a hearing on Meadows's sentencing after receiving briefs from the parties. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court denied Meadows's motion for a mistrial, disregarded the second-degree murder verdict, and sentenced Meadows to life imprisonment without parole. Subsequently, the circuit court entered its judgment of conviction and its order denying the motion for a mistrial.
Meadows first argues on appeal that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for directed verdict, because the State failed to establish sufficient proof to support the jury's verdicts on the offenses of capital murder and arson. Specifically, Meadows argues that the evidence was insufficient, because the testimony was inherently improbable, physically impossible, and unbelievable. The State responds that sufficient evidence supports Meadows's conviction for capital murder and arson. We agree with the State and hold that the circuit court did not err in denying Meadows's motion for directed verdict.
A motion for directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. See Barrett v. State, 354 Ark. 187, 119 S.W.3d 485 (2003). The test for such motions is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. See 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. On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. Moreover, the credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury and not for this court. Id. The jury may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence and may choose to believe the State's account of the facts rather than the defendant's. Id.
Because Meadows failed to argue that the State had not presented sufficient evidence on the alternative charge of premeditated capital murder, she failed to preserve this argument.3 See Ark. R.Crim. P. 33.1. Therefore, we will only address Meadows's arguments regarding capital-felony murder and arson. A person commits capital-felony murder with arson as the underlying felony if:
(2) Acting alone or with one (1) or more other persons, he commits or attempts to commit arson, and in the course of and in furtherance of the felony or in immediate flight therefrom, he or an accomplice causes the death of any person[.]
Ark.Code Ann. § 5-10-101(a)(2) (Repl. 1997). Under capital-felony murder, the State must first prove the felony, so the felony becomes an element of the murder charge. See Williams v. State, 347 Ark. 728, 67 S.W.3d 548 (2002). In this case, to prove that Meadows committed capital-felony murder, the State was required to prove arson as the underlying felony. A person commits arson if he starts a fire or causes an explosion with the purpose of destroying or otherwise damaging:
(1) An occupiable structure or motor vehicle that is the property of another person; or
...
(3) Any property, whether his own or that of another person, if the act thereby negligently creates a risk of death or serious physical injury to any person[.]
Ark.Code Ann. § 5-38-301(a)(1) & (3) (Repl.1997).
Evidence presented at trial revealed that Meadows arrived at the trailer home of Diane Sprague in Green Forest on November 7, 2001, at approximately 4:30 p.m. Meadows subsequently left Sprague's home and returned between 8:00 and 8:30 p.m. to collect $20 that Sprague owed Meadows. To satisfy the debt, Sprague instead agreed to buy groceries for Meadows at the Wal-Mart in Harrison. Each took her own car, and the women met in the Wal-Mart parking lot. After purchasing groceries, the women went their separate ways. Sprague bought gas for her car and made a few telephone calls at a pay phone before driving back to Green Forest. When she returned home, Sprague found Tracy and Dale Meadows in her home. Dale Meadows told Sprague that his trailer home had exploded and that he tried...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Terese Marie Meadows v. State
...tampering with evidence. An aggregate sentence of life imprisonment without parole was imposed. This court affirmed. Meadows v. State, 360 Ark. 5, 199 S.W.3d 634 (2004). In 2013, appellant, who was incarcerated at a unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction located in Jackson County, fi......
-
Gikonyo v. State
...the verdict. Id. The credibility of witnesses is an issue for the fact finder and not for the appellate court. Meadows v. State, 360 Ark. 5, 199 S.W.3d 634 (2004). The fact finder may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence and may choose to believe the State's ......
-
Woods v. State
...murder statute, the State must first prove the felony, so the felony becomes an element of the murder charge. See Meadows v. State, 360 Ark. 5, 199 S.W.3d 634 (2004); Williams v. State, 347 Ark. 728, 67 S.W.3d 548 (2002). Here, "the jury acquitted Bryant on the aggravated robbery charges, a......
-
Daniels v. State
...(where jury acquitted defendant of the underlying felony, his capital-felony-murder conviction could not stand); Meadows v. State, 360 Ark. 5, 199 S.W.3d 634 (2004). Daniels argues — and the majority apparently agrees — that because the evidence in this case only shows that he was recoverin......