Turner v. State
| Decision Date | 09 October 2014 |
| Docket Number | No. CR–14–59.,CR–14–59. |
| Citation | 443 S.W.3d 535,2014 Ark. 415 |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
| Parties | Bryant E. TURNER, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. |
The Henry Firm, P.A., by: Brianne A. Franks, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Kathryn Henry, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
A Faulkner County jury found appellant, Bryant E. Turner, guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of property. Because the total sentence imposed was life imprisonment, his appeal was filed with this court. Ark. Sup.Ct. R. 1–2(a)(2) (2014). On appeal, Turner challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. We affirm.
On August 27, 2012, Austin Casher and Taylor Mitchell were working at Game Point, a video-game retail store in Conway, Arkansas. While Casher and Mitchell were preparing to close the store, a man came to the counter, reached into a Nike backpack that he was carrying, and raised a gun. According to Casher, the man stated, He ordered Casher and Mitchell to the floor and removed the cash from all the registers and a lockbox, approximately $1200. According to Casher, just before the man left, he said, “I want you guys to remember me because I spared your lives.” After the police arrived, Casher discovered the backpack on the floor. The backpack contained a bottle of mouthwash.
On the same day as the crime, Casher and Mitchell separately viewed a black-and-white photographic spread that did not contain Turner's photograph. Casher picked one person—who was incarcerated in Texas—with a certainty of 75% to 80%. Two days later, Casher viewed a color spread. Casher picked Turner as the person who had committed the crimes and told police that he was 100% positive. In court, Casher identified Turner as the person who had committed the crimes. Casher also viewed a videotape taken from the store's security cameras, and he identified Turner and Turner's backpack. He also identified the backpack introduced into evidence as the one Turner had left at the store. On cross-examination, Casher testified that because the second spread was in color, it was easier to determine facial features and skin tone, and he was not in as much shock when he viewed it.
Mitchell testified that he also viewed the black-and-white spread and chose a person—the same person chosen by Casher—with a certainty of 60% or 70%. He further testified that when he viewed the color spread, he chose Turner and indicated to police that he was 60% certain. He testified that the color photographs made it easier to make an identification. Mitchell, in court, identified Turner as the person who had committed the crimes. He also identified the backpack introduced into evidence as the one that Turner had left at the store.
In addition to testimony from Casher and Mitchell, the State introduced testimony from a forensic-DNA examiner who testified that Turner's DNA was found on the inner cap of the bottle of mouthwash. The DNA examiner also testified that DNA from more than two persons was present on a cutting from the Nike backpack. A latent-print examiner testified that he was unable to attribute to Turner any of the fingerprints lifted by the police.
In his directed-verdict motions, Turner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the aggravated-robbery and theft-of-property charges. Turner asserted that the identification evidence was, at best, “shaky,” and that there was no proof that he was involved in the crimes. Turner further contended that there was no proof relating to how the mouthwash bottle arrived at the store and that the backpack, which had on it DNA of more than two persons, could have been placed there by someone else. He further argued that there was no evidence that a deadly weapon had been used. The circuit court denied the motions. After he was convicted, he appealed, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdicts.
On appeal from the denial of a directed-verdict motion challenging the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, considering only the evidence that supports the verdict, and determine whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Turner v. State
...appeal from the judgment, Turner challenged the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions. We affirmed. Turner v. State , 2014 Ark. 415, 443 S.W.3d 535.On December 18, 2014, Turner timely filed in the trial court a verified pro se petition for postconviction relief pursuant to ......
-
Pokatilov v. State
...certainty and precision to compel a conclusion one way or another and pass beyond mere suspicion or conjecture. Turner v. State, 2014 Ark. 415, at 3, 443 S.W.3d 535, 537. Although circumstantial evidence may provide a basis to support a conviction, it must be consistent with the defendant's......
-
Hinton v. State
...of sufficient certainty and precision to compel a conclusion one way or the other and pass beyond mere suspicion or conjecture. Turner v. State, 2014 Ark. 415, at ¶ 3, 443 S.W.3d 535, 537.As applicable in the present case, a person commits theft of property if he or she knowingly "[t]akes o......
-
Dorsey v. State
...As discussed above, the reliability of Delgado's identification is a matter for the jury to determine. See Turner v. State , 2014 Ark. 415, 443 S.W.3d 535. Evidence of Dorsey's flight from police in a truck that was last seen leaving the murder is independently relevant to demonstrate guilt......