Turner v. State
| Decision Date | 08 October 2008 |
| Docket Number | No. CA CR 08-256.,CA CR 08-256. |
| Citation | 288 S.W.3d 669,103 Ark. App. 248 |
| Parties | Wishorne TURNER, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Hancock, Lane & Barrett, PLLC, by: Charles D. Hancock, Little Rock, AR, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Eileen W. Harrison, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
A jury found appellant, Wishorne Turner, guilty of aggravated robbery, theft of property, and second-degree criminal mischief. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was insufficient to support these convictions, because the only evidence of his guilt was a single fingerprint found on the outside of the victims' truck. We conclude that the State's evidence did not exclude every other reasonable conclusion but that of appellant's guilt, and therefore, we reverse and dismiss.
On July 30, 2007, after 9:00 p.m., Kanisher Caldwell and her husband, Morris, arrived in Pine Bluff after traveling to Kansas City, Missouri, for a family reunion. They made the trip in their truck, a 2007 Ford F150. While in Kansas City, Kanisher and Morris had the truck detailed so that it could be photographed against the Kansas City skyline. The truck was hand washed, scrubbed with brushes and sprayers, and hand dried.
Back in Pine Bluff, Kanisher dropped Morris off at home, dropped their daughter off with a relative, and returned home. As she exited the truck, a man grabbed her by her neck, put a gun to her head, and asked for her keys. He pushed her to the house and demanded that she open the door. She then saw two other men. All three men had their faces covered and were armed. Morris came to the door of the residence, and the man who held Kanisher pointed his gun at Morris while the second man pointed his gun at Kanisher. Morris grabbed Kanisher, pulled her inside the residence, and slammed the door shut. Morris heard the truck start, and he exited the residence and fired his shotgun as the truck drove away. Neither Kanisher nor Morris saw who entered the truck. Morris testified that incident occurred at 9:30 or 9:45 p.m.
At 10:17 p.m., Pine Bluff police spotted the truck traveling at a high rate of speed and running a stop sign. During the police pursuit, the driver jumped from the truck. After the truck came to a stop, police noted there were no other occupants. Twenty to thirty minutes later, police found Demante Dorn in a shed. According to one officer, the truck was twenty or twenty-five blocks away from the Caldwell's home.
Two fingerprints were found on the exterior of the truck. A fingerprint found on the driver's door matched one of Dorn's fingerprints. Dorn was also identified as one of the assailants based on Morris's identification of Dorn's clothing and his identification of clothing and a weapon discovered in the shed. A fingerprint was also found "[o]ver on the door handle" on the passenger door, and that fingerprint matched one of appellant's fingerprints.1 According to the police, appellant's address shown on his state identification card was not close to where the Caldwells resided or where the truck was recovered.
Appellant argues that the State's evidence was insufficient evidence to support the convictions, because the only evidence of his guilt was a single fingerprint and the jury's verdict was based on speculation and conjecture. He observes that his fingerprint was found on the exterior—not inside—the truck and that the victims did not testify that they saw anyone place a hand on the passenger side of the truck.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and determine whether substantial evidence supports the judgment. King v. State, 100 Ark.App. 208, 266 S.W.3d 205 (2007). When the State's case is made entirely of circumstantial evidence, if it leaves the fact-finder to speculation and conjecture, then the evidence is insufficient as a matter of law. Id. Two equally reasonable conclusions about what happened raise only a suspicion of guilt, and on appeal, we may consider whether the record, viewed in the light most favorable to the State, presented this situation and required the fact-finder to speculate to convict the defendant. Id.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the victims testified that the truck was in their possession while they traveled out of state, the truck was thoroughly detailed while they were out of state, and they remained in possession of the truck at all times prior to the commission of the crimes. The truck was out of their possession only while it was in the possession of one of the persons who committed the crimes, and that was at night for only thirty to forty-five minutes until the truck was spotted traveling at a high rate of speed by police some twenty or twenty-five blocks away, apparently in high-speed flight from the area in which the crime was committed. Appellant's fingerprint was found on the exterior passenger-door handle, a point of entry into the truck, and appellant did not reside in either the area...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Reed v. State
...669 (2008), Standridge v. State, 310 Ark. 408, 837 S.W.2d 447 (1992), and United States v. Strayhorn, 743 F.3d 917 (4th Cir. 2014). [3] In Turner, we reversed several convictions, including conviction for aggravated robbery, when there was no corroborating evidence, and the State's case res......
-
Vaughan v. State, CR-17-1047
...nor can her involvement as an accomplice in this matter stand without resorting to conjecture and speculation. Turner v. State , 103 Ark. App. 248, 288 S.W.3d 669 (2008).Alternatively, appellant alleges that if this court holds that she is an accomplice, she can be held liable for only the ......
-
Tuck v. Arkansas Dept. of Human Services
... ... [288 S.W.3d 666] ... Booth Law Firm, PLC, by: Frank Booth, Van Buren, AR, for appellant ... Gray Allen Turner, Office of Chief Counsel, for appellee ... WENDELL GRIFFEN, Judge ... Dustin Tuck appeals from an order terminating ... Other DHS documents from late 2006 state that, in December of that year, appellant attended a DHS staffing, expressed an interest in visiting AC, and received background-information forms ... ...
-
Daugherty v. State
...to the State, presented this situation and required the fact-finder to speculate to convict the defendant. Turner v. State, 103 Ark. App. 248, 288 S.W.3d 669 (2008). Here, the radar gun measured appellant's speed at 51 mph, but the evidence showed that even a properly calibrated radar gun c......