Yandell v. State
| Decision Date | 12 September 1977 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. CR,CR,1 |
| Citation | 262 Ark. 195,555 S.W.2d 561 |
| Parties | Charla Fell YANDELL, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 77-51 |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
E. L. Hollaway, Corning, for appellant.
Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen. by Joseph H. Purvis, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Charla Fell Yandell was charged in Clay County Circuit Court with the second degree murder of her infant seventeen month old boy. She was convicted of voluntary manslaughter and sentenced to seven years imprisonment in the state penitentiary.
Mrs. Yandell alleges four errors on appeal, but essentially they amount to two: the facts did not warrant nor will they support her conviction; and a doctor from Mexico, unlicensed in the United States, was permitted erroneously to give expert medical testimony.
We find no error in the record.
Mrs. Yandell persisted in her innocence before and during trial. She claimed the boy fell accidentally from the kitchen table, striking his head; and, also, in falling dragged off on top of him, a typewriter, which was on the table. She denied ever beating the child, except blows she may have rendered in efforts to revive him. It was her contention that his unconscious state and subsequent death, three days later, were caused by the accidental fall. Mrs. Yandell was the only eyewitness to the incident.
The main argument of Mrs. Yandell on appeal is there was not sufficient evidence to warrant or support her conviction. We find on review the evidence, circumstantial in nature, was sufficient to warrant and support her conviction.
There were several witnesses who testified; however, the most damaging evidence against Mrs. Yandell was the testimony of two doctors a doctor in Corning and a resident neurosurgeon in Memphis. The doctor in Corning examined the child and immediately sent him to a hospital in Jonesboro. He was examined there and transferred to a Memphis hospital where he was treated by the resident in neurosurgery. These doctors testified the child suffered from a brain concussion. They both were of the opinion the child had been physically abused. Both ordered photographs of the boy's body after their initial examinations. The photographs graphically corroborated their opinions that the child had old bruises inflicted before the fall. Mrs. Yandell denied she had ever beat or struck the child. She explained the bruises on the back and lower extremity of the child were the result of her efforts to revive the child or were caused by accidental bumps or falls prior to the fatal injury. Evidently the jury chose to disbelieve Mrs. Yandell's story.
Direct evidence only is not necessary for one to be convicted. Circumstantial evidence can present a question for the jury and be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wood v. State
...786 (Iowa 2001); Coe v. State, 17 S.W.3d 193 (Tenn.2000); Commonwealth v. Brown, 544 Pa. 406, 676 A.2d 1178 (1996); Yandell v. State, 262 Ark. 195, 555 S.W.2d 561 (1977); Ducote v. Allstate Ins. Co., 242 So.2d 103 We adopt the rationale of the Alabama Court of Civil Appeals and the other ju......
-
Perry v. State
...S.W.2d 156 (1977). Circumstantial evidence alone may be sufficient to support a conviction. Ayers v. State, supra; Yandell v. State, 262 Ark. 195, 555 S.W.2d 561 (1977). The law makes no distinction between circumstantial evidence and direct evidence. Williams v. State, 258 Ark. 207, 523 S.......
-
Booth v. State
...evidence can present a question to be resolved by the trier of fact and be the basis to support a conviction. Yandell v. State, 262 Ark. 195, 555 S.W.2d 561 (1977). We have often said that the fact that evidence is circumstantial does not render it insubstantial. See, e.g., Ashley v. State,......
-
Muhammed v. State
...evidence can present questions to be resolved by the trier of fact and be the basis to support a conviction. Yandell v. State, 262 Ark. 195, 555 S.W.2d 561 (1977). The fact that evidence is circumstantial does not render it insubstantial. Shipley v. State, 25 Ark.App. 262, 757 S.W.2d 178 (1......