Cauffiel v. State
2013 Ark. App. 642
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Defendant Ned Wayne Cauffiel and victim Shelley Vocque were former romantic partners with a child; Vocque had previously obtained a protective order against Cauffiel.
- After the protective order expired, Vocque gave Cauffiel a ride so he could visit their son; Cauffiel brought a rifle in a case.
- While parked at Vocque’s home after picking up the child, Cauffiel became angry about child-support issues, yelled threats (e.g., he would “destroy” anyone who stood between him and his son; others would “face the thunder”), and displayed a police-scanner app on his phone.
- Vocque testified Cauffiel grabbed her phone repeatedly, she feared he could take the child, and she did not contact others because she believed he could monitor communications via the scanner.
- Vocque heard Cauffiel cock or load the rifle, observed him pace with the rifle propped by the bedroom door, and heard him say he was trying to have his father talk him out of “it.” She believed he intended to harm her though he never pointed the rifle at her or the child.
- Cauffiel was convicted of aggravated assault on a family or household member and first-degree terroristic threatening; a charge of first-degree false imprisonment was dismissed at the close of the State’s case.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State/Vocque) | Defendant's Argument (Cauffiel) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for aggravated assault on a family/household member | Vocque: Cauffiel’s cocking/loading of rifle, placing it within easy access, violent statements, and past history created a substantial danger of death/serious injury | Cauffiel: Rifle remained in bag behind couch; he never pointed, cocked, or loaded the rifle and did not create substantial danger | Affirmed — jury could credit Vocque; cocking/loading plus threats and prior violence sufficed to show conduct creating substantial danger under statute |
| Sufficiency of evidence for first-degree terroristic threatening (purpose to terrorize) | Vocque: Threatening statements (“destroy,” “face the thunder”) made while he cocked/loaded the gun and sought someone to talk him out of “it” show intent to terrorize | Cauffiel: Statements were vague/innocuous; lacked clear intent to terrorize or kill | Affirmed — in context (volatile relationship and gun preparation), statements and conduct show conscious object to terrorize, supporting conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Terry v. State, 366 Ark. 441 (discusses standard of review for sufficiency of evidence)
- Turner v. State, 391 S.W.3d 358 (credibility assessment is for the factfinder)
- Tatum v. State, 381 S.W.3d 124 (evidence that a defendant’s conscious object was to frighten supports intent to terrorize)