Williams v. State

• Decision Date: 13 October 2011
• Docket Number: No. CR 11–364.,CR 11–364.
• Citation: Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. 432, 385 S.W.3d 157 (Ark. 2011)
• Parties: Roderick WILLIAMS, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2011 Ark. 432

385 S.W.3d 157

Roderick WILLIAMS, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. CR 11–364.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Oct. 13, 2011.

Joseph Paul Mazzanti, III, Lake Village, for appellant.

Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

COURTNEY HUDSON HENRY, Justice.

Appellant Roderick Williams appeals an order of the Desha County Circuit Court convicting him of capital murder, first-degree domestic battering, endangering the welfare of a minor, and possession of a firearm by a felon. For those convictions, appellant was sentenced to a term of life imprisonment without parole plus a term of seventy-two years. For reversal, appellant argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict on the capital-murder and child-endangerment charges and by denying his motion for mistrial. We have jurisdiction pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1–2(a)(2) (2011), as the jury imposed a sentence of life imprisonment. We affirm.

Appellant had a turbulent relationship with Kerman Harris, who testified that appellant was the father of her nine-month-old daughter. The couple ended their relationship, and Harris filed an order of protection against him. Nevertheless, on the afternoon of April 26, 2007, appellant attempted to contact Harris at her cousin's residence in McGehee when appellant approached the home and demanded entry. Harris called 911 for police assistance, but appellant left the premises before the police arrived.

At approximately 10:30 that evening, appellant went to Harris's home where she lived with her baby and her parents. Harris's mother, Clara Cobb, came onto the front porch to speak to appellant while Harris was on the phone inside the home. After her phone conversation, Harris, while holding the baby, went toward the porch to see who was there. At that time, she saw appellant loading a shotgun while talking to Cobb. Cobb threw up her hands, and appellant shot her in the stomach. Harris stood within a foot of her mother behind a screen door. Still armed, appellant took Harris and her baby, dragging Harris by her hair to a car where his uncle, Alonzo Williams, was waiting. Appellant drove away with Harris and the baby. During the car ride, appellant hit Harris, and she and Williams attempted to shield the baby from appellant's blows. Appellant pulled over and left his uncle and the baby on the side of the road. Appellant then forced Harris to remain with him. After getting the car stuck, appellant and Harris caught a ride to a trailer where they stayed until a SWAT team apprehended him the following day. As a result of appellant's beating, Harris suffered a broken arm and wrist and injuries to her face.

Police discovered three unspent shotgun shells on the porch near Cobb's body. A medical examiner performed an autopsy and stated that Cobb suffered a gunshot wound to the upper part of her stomach. The examiner found shotgun shell pellets and a shot cup inside Cobb's body. Based upon these findings, the examiner confirmed that Cobb was shot at close range. Police officers found the broken shotgun and a spent shell near a bridge in close proximity to the Cobb house where appellant stopped to leave his uncle and baby.

Appellant was subsequently tried by a jury and was convicted of capital murder, kidnapping, first-degree domestic battering, endangering the welfare of a minor, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. For those convictions, appellant received a sentence of life imprisonment plus seventy-two years. Appellant appealed to our court, and we reversed and remanded in Williams v. State, 2010 Ark. 89, 377 S.W.3d 168, holding that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying appellant's motion for mistrial because the State received the benefit of prejudicial testimony regarding an alleged prior conviction.

Upon remand, prior to trial, the State and defense counsel agreed to an order prohibiting the officers of the court or the witnesses from using the word, “trial,” to prevent the jurors from learning that the case had already been tried. During Harris's testimony, she alluded to “the last trial.” Appellant moved for mistrial, which the circuit court denied. After deliberations, the jury convicted appellant of capital murder, first-degree domestic battering, endangering the welfare of a minor, and being a felon in possession of a firearm. Appellant again received a sentence of life imprisonment without parole plus a term of seventy-two years. The circuit court entered an order reflecting the jury's conviction and sentence. From this order, appellant brings his appeal.

On appeal, appellant argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict for the offenses of capital murder and endangering the welfare of a minor. Although appellant raises his challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in his first and third points, double-jeopardy concerns require that this court review these arguments first. Morganv. State, 2009 Ark. 257, 308 S.W.3d 147.

We have held that a motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Arnett v. State, 353 Ark. 165, 122 S.W.3d 484 (2003). The test for such motions is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. 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 State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. We have held that the credibility of witnesses is a matter for the jury's consideration. Tryon v. State, 371 Ark. 25, 263 S.W.3d 475 (2007). Where the testimony is conflicting, we do not pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and have no right to disregard the testimony of any witness after the jury has given it full credence, where it cannot be said with assurance that it was inherently improbable, physically impossible, or so clearly unbelievable that reasonable minds could not differ thereon. Davenport v. State, 373 Ark. 71, 281 S.W.3d 268 (2008).

With regard to the capital-murder conviction, appellant argues that the State provided insufficient evidence that appellant acted with premeditation and deliberation to commit the murder. Appellant admits to shooting and killing the victim, but he maintains that he did not do so with premeditation and deliberation.¹

A defendant commits capital murder, if, with the premeditated and deliberated purpose of causing the death of another person, he causes the death of any person. Ark. Code Ann. § 5–10–101(a)(4) (Supp. 2011). Premeditated and deliberated murder occurs when the killer's conscious object is to cause death, and he forms that intention before he acts and as a result of a weighing of the consequences of his course of conduct. Evans v. State, 2011 Ark. 33, 378 S.W.3d 82. Premeditation is not required to exist for a particular length of time. Carmichael v. State, 340 Ark. 598, 12 S.W.3d 225 (2000). It may be formed in an instant and is rarely capable of proof by direct evidence but must usually be inferred from the circumstances of the crime. Pearcy v. State, 2010 Ark. 454, 375 S.W.3d 622. Similarly, premeditation and deliberation may be inferred from the type and character of the weapon, the manner in which the weapon was used, the nature, extent, and location of the wounds, and the accused's conduct. Robinson v. State, 363 Ark. 432, 214 S.W.3d 840 (2005).

Here, Harris testified that she had filed an order of protection against appellant for harassing her; however, appellant appeared at her cousin's house and left after she called 911. Later that night, Harris heard her mother talking to someone on the porch, and when she got off the phone, she went to the door and saw appellant loading a shotgun. Harris stated that she saw her mother throw up her hands as if to say, “I give up,” and she witnessed appellant shoot her mother with the shotgun at close range. According to Harris, she stood near her mother on the inside of a screen door, about one foot away, while she held her child in her arms.

Dr. Daniel J. Konzleman, an associate medical examiner at the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, testified about the nature, extent, and location of Cobb's wounds. The doctor testified that he performed the autopsy on the victim and discovered that she suffered a shotgun wound to her abdomen. Dr. Konzleman further testified that a shot cup will enter a wound if the shot is fired within approximately eight feet. He stated that he recovered small birdshot-type pellets and a shot cup from the victim's body. Based upon his findings, Dr. Konzleman estimated that the shooting could have taken place within a range of one to two feet.

Appellant testified on his behalf. According to appellant, he was intoxicated as he approached the Cobb residence carrying a shotgun and laid the shotgun down. Appellant testified that Cobb saw the gun and grabbed it. Appellant stated that he took the gun from her and that it “went off.” Appellant testified that he told Harris it was an accident. However, we have often stated that the jury weighs the credibility of the witnesses and resolves any conflicts or inconsistencies in the evidence. Matthews v. State, 2011 Ark. 397, 2011 WL 4492237. Thus, when confronted with the inconsistencies between Harris's and appellant's testimony, the jury believed Harris and found that appellant acted with premeditation and deliberation by taking the shotgun to the house, walking to the porch, loading the gun, and firing at the victim after she threw her hands in surrender. Based upon our standard of review, we hold that substantial evidence supports appellant's conviction of capital murder with premeditation and deliberation.

With regard to the child-endangerment conviction, appellant argues that the circuit court...