Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 17 September 2015
• Docket Number: No. CR–14–1088,CR–14–1088
• Citation: 468 S.W.3d 776,2015 Ark. 316
• Parties: Fred L. Williams, Appellant v. State of Arkansas, Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2015 Ark. 316

468 S.W.3d 776

Fred L. Williams, Appellant

v.State of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR–14–1088

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered September 17, 2015

Rehearing Denied October 29, 2015

Potts Law Office, Monticello, by: Gary W. Potts, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

Opinion

PAUL E. DANIELSON, Associate Justice

Appellant Fred L. Williams appeals from the sentencing order of the Drew County Circuit Court reflecting his convictions for murder in the first degree and abuse of a corpse and his total sentence of life imprisonment. His sole point on appeal is that the circuit court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict. We affirm Williams's convictions and sentence.

The facts, as taken from the record, are these. On the morning of April 5, 2013, Tangela Walton accompanied her daughter on a Southeast Arkansas Transportation bus from their home in Warren to her school in Monticello. After signing her daughter into school, Walton returned to the bus for transportation back to her home in Warren. During the trip, the bus driver observed Walton in what appeared to be an argument with someone on her cell phone. Between approximately 8:15 a.m. and 8:20 a.m., the bus dropped Walton off at her home; however, she failed to make arrangements for the return trip to pick up her daughter as she had in the past.

That afternoon, Walton was not at home when her two other children were dropped off after school, and she was unreachable on her cell phone. Upon her being reported to the police as missing, Williams, Walton's on-again, off-again boyfriend, was interviewed by Criminal Investigator Don Hollingsworth of the Warren Police Department. During the interview, Williams admitted speaking with Walton the morning of April 5, but denied knowing where she might be. In addition, Williams's home was searched, but neither Walton, nor her cell phone, was located at that time.

After obtaining Walton's phone records, Hollingsworth again interviewed Williams on April 10. At that time, Williams again admitted talking to Walton on the morning of April 5. Williams further conceded that he “might have texted” Walton later that day to ask what she was doing, but he denied having any arguments with her that day.

On April 14, Hollingsworth received notice that Williams and his attorney were at the Monticello Police Department for Williams to make another statement. When Hollingsworth arrived, Williams was on the floor, and Hollingsworth was told that Williams had had a seizure; he was taken to the hospital. While in the emergency room, Williams told Investigator Hollingsworth where Walton's body was located.

The next day, Williams was interviewed once more. At that time, Williams stated that Walton had called him on the morning of April 5 and asked him if he “want[ed] to get together and have sex.” Williams said that he texted her “okay” and that he then went to Warren, picked her up, and they returned to his house in Monticello.

Williams said that they engaged in “kinky” sex, explaining that Walton wanted to be tied up and “try oxygen deprivation treatment where you put a bag over her head and have sex” in an effort to increase orgasm.

Williams told police that they had sex once already, but that Walton wanted to have sex again. He stated that after they had begun, he went into a seizure and “fell out on her.” Williams said that when he awakened, Walton was smothered, and he panicked. He said that he stayed with her for a couple of hours, crying and trying to revive her, but at some point he carried her outside of his house and buried her. He further stated that he had thrown out the necktie used to bind her hands and the bag they had used during sex, and he denied having argued with Walton that day.

A bench warrant was subsequently issued for Williams's arrest, and he was charged with first-degree murder and abuse of a corpse. Following a jury trial, at which it was established that Walton died of asphyxia by undetermined means, Williams was convicted on both counts. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment on the charge of first-degree murder and twenty years' imprisonment on the abuse-of-a-corpse charge, to be served concurrently. He now brings the instant appeal.

As his only point on appeal, Williams argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict. He contends that while the evidence shows that Walton died in his home, the evidence was insufficient to prove that he purposely caused Walton's death. Williams further asserts that the State's proof consisted solely of circumstantial evidence and that the jury was forced to resort to speculation when it found the requisite intent to convict him of murder in the first degree. Thus, he urges, the circuit court erred in denying his directed-verdict motion on the charge of first-degree murder. In addition, Williams avers that, while he buried Walton's body after her death, he committed no act falling within the offense of abuse of a corpse. Specifically, he maintains that he buried Walton clothed, and that he neither mutilated her nor mistreated her body in an offensive manner; therefore, he contends, his motion for directed verdict on the count of abuse of a corpse should also have been granted.

The State responds that substantial evidence was presented to support both of Williams's convictions. With respect to his conviction for first-degree murder, the State asserts that the jury was free to accept Williams's admission to putting Walton in a situation in which she was intentionally deprived of oxygen, but it was also free to reject his assertion that her death was accidental asphyxiation due to his weight. It maintains that the jury was within its province to reject Williams's hypothesis of innocence, in light of his continued denials to police, his burying of her body, his disposal of the necktie and bag, his construction of an alibi through texts to Walton's phone, and the physical injuries to Walton's body. The State further argues that there was sufficient evidence to sustain Williams's conviction for abuse of a corpse, when the jury was the bellwether of what was reasonable and could have concluded that Williams's conduct in burying Walton's body in a shallow grave was offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities.

Our standard of review for a sufficiency challenge is well settled. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. SeeGilliland v. State, 2010 Ark. 135, 361 S.W.3d 279. We affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. See id. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resorting to speculation or conjecture. See id. Circumstantial evidence may provide a basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. See Marcyniuk v. State, 2010 Ark. 257, 373 S.W.3d 243. In other words, if there are two equally reasonable conclusions as to what occurred, this merely gives rise to a suspicion of guilt, which is not enough to support a conviction. See Boldin v. State, 373 Ark. 295, 283 S.W.3d 565 (2008).

First–Degree Murder

Arkansas law provides that a person commits murder in the first degree if “[w]ith a purpose of causing the death of another person, the person causes the death of another person.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5–10–102(a)(2) (Repl. 2013). Further, “[a] person acts purposely with respect to his or her conduct or a result of his or her conduct when it is the person's conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause the result.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5–2–202(1) (Repl. 2013). This court has observed that a criminal defendant's intent or state of mind is seldom capable of proof by direct evidence and must usually be inferred from the circumstances of the crime. See Edmond v. State, 351 Ark. 495, 95 S.W.3d 789 (2003). Therefore, we have recognized that the intent necessary to sustain a conviction for first-degree murder may be inferred from the type of weapon used, the manner of its use, and the nature, extent, and location of the wounds. See id. This court has further held that guilt can be established without eyewitness testimony, and evidence of guilt is not less because it is circumstantial. See id.

The longstanding rule in the use of circumstantial evidence is that, to be substantial, the evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. See Norris v. State, 2010 Ark. 174, 368 S.W.3d 52. The question whether the circumstantial evidence excludes every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence is one for the jury to decide. See id. On review, this court's role is to determine whether the jury resorted to speculation and conjecture in reaching its verdict. See id.

At trial, the State presented testimony that, on her return trip home, Walton appeared to be arguing with someone on her cell phone. It further presented the three statements that Williams gave to police on April 8, April 10, and April 15. In his initial statement, Williams stated that he had talked to Walton at around 8:00 a.m. on April 5 and that she had asked him to help her find a car. He said that he later texted her, agreeing to her request, but had not heard from her again. When questioned further about his conversation with Walton, Williams stated that she had told him that she was trying to get some people out of her house who had taken her keys. He also told police that he had spoken with Walton's sister, Angela, at around 4:00 p.m. that same day, who was looking for Walton (asking if Walton was with him). Williams explained that at first he thought Walton may have been at the...