Riddick v. State
| Decision Date | 24 November 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. CR,CR |
| Citation | 607 S.W.2d 671,271 Ark. 203 |
| Parties | Ray RIDDICK, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 80-148. |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Seay & Bristow, Jonesboro, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Mary Davies Scott, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant, Ray Riddick, was charged with arson and burglary arising from the allegation that he and one Leroy Dirlam burglarized and then set fire to the Circle Inn Restaurant in Manila, Arkansas on December 24, 1978. Dirlam died in the fire. The jury trial resulted in appellant's acquittal for burglary and his conviction for arson. In accord with the jury verdict, appellant was sentenced to five years imprisonment. Riddick's sole point on appeal is that his conviction should be set aside and he should be discharged because one who burns a structure at the request of the owner cannot be guilty of arson. Our arson statute provides:
(1) A person commits arson if he starts a fire or causes an explosion with the purpose of destroying or otherwise damaging:
(a) an occupiable structure that is the property of another person;
Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-1902 (Repl.1977)
Appellant insists that since one of the elements of an arson conviction is that the property be that of another, an owner cannot be found guilty of arson in the burning of his own building; therefore, anyone who commits the offense at the owner's request, as his agent, cannot be guilty of arson. To support his contention appellant relies on a single Kansas case, State v. Christendon, 205 Kan. 28, 468 P.2d 153 (1970). In that case the owner of the burned structure had admitted hiring Christendon for the purpose of committing arson. The owner, himself, had been convicted of third degree arson and insurance arson. Christendon's prosecution for first degree arson was dismissed by the trial judge on the grounds that as the owner's agent, Christendon could not be convicted of a higher crime than his principal. On the basis of the uncontroverted fact that Christendon was the owner's agent in burning the structure, the Kansas Supreme Court affirmed. The facts in Christendon are easily distinguished from those involved here. There the owner had already been convicted and had admitted that Christendon was his agent, there was no question that Christendon was the owner's agent; here, Frank Hamilton, the owner of the Circle Inn Restaurant, took the stand on rebuttal and emphatically denied soliciting either Riddick or Leroy Dirlam to burn his restaurant. Since it cannot be said that the owner's participation is an uncontroverted fact, we cannot say that Christendon is controlling.
There was testimony presented by witnesses for the state, police officers who had investigated the scene, that not only was the Circle Inn fire of incendiary origin but that there was evidence that a burglary had taken place: Leroy Dirlam was found face down on the floor of the charred building still clutching burnt checks; a cash register drawer lay nearby and money was scattered everywhere. The only evidence that Riddick had burned the restaurant at the owner's instigation was the testimony of Everette Ercelle Duncan, appellant's nephew. Duncan stated that appellant had come to him the night of the fire, badly burned on his hands and face and had asked Duncan to take him to Chicago. Duncan eventually took appellant to Bald Knob where appellant's sister lived. During the drive, Duncan observed appellant throw some keys out the window of the moving car. Later appellant told Duncan the keys were given to him and Dirlam to get into the Circle Inn. After appellant had been admitted to the burn center at Baptist Hospital, Duncan visited him there. It was then appellant related that he had been hired, through his son-in-law Benny Murray, to burn the Circle Inn in...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Beed v. State
...271 Ark. ---, 607 S.W.2d 345 (1980). Resolution of the conflicts and the question of credibility were for the jury. Riddick v. State, 271 Ark. ---, 607 S.W.2d 671 (1980). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to show aggravated robbery, we only look to see if, viewed in the light m......
-
Amalgamated Clothing & Textile Workers Intl. Union v. Earle Industries, Inc.
... ... on appeal, contending that the chancery court erred in denying (1) the union's motion to dismiss Earle Industries' complaint for failure to state facts upon which relief might be granted and (2) the union's alternative motion for summary judgment while granting Earle Industries' motion for a ... ...
-
Henry v. State, CR
...the time of the death of Chief Mueller. It is the province of the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses. Riddick v. State, 271 Ark. 203, 607 S.W.2d 671 (1980). The jury is free to disregard the testimony of the appellant if it so chooses. Core v. State, 265 Ark. 409, 578 S.W.2d......
-
Three Sisters Petroleum, Inc. v. Langley
... ... On March 15, 2000, Appellants filed suit in state court in Caddo Parish, Louisiana, seeking a declaratory judgment as to whether any contract existed between Three Sisters and Appellee Langley. On ... ...