Coupey v. State
2013 Ark. App. 446
Ark. Ct. App.2013Background
- Michael Coupey pled guilty (Nov. 2011) to aggravated assault (72-month suspended sentence) and domestic battery (six months jail); no-contact order with victim Shelly Wilkinson and restitution/fee obligations were imposed.
- On June 7, 2012, Shelly's new boyfriend, Michael Dishno, reported that Coupey called and threatened to "cut [his] throat" and that a window screen had been tampered with; Dishno called police.
- Officer Clyde Forrest responded, observed the screen slightly out of its frame (not cut), and heard portions of Coupey’s calls (one on speaker while the officer was present); two women at the house told the officer they had the same story.
- The State filed a petition to revoke Coupey’s suspended sentence (Nov. 28, 2012), alleging commission of first-degree terroristic threatening and failure to pay restitution/fees.
- At the revocation hearing, the court dismissed the payment claim (Coupey had made multiple payments) but found by a preponderance of the evidence that Coupey committed first-degree terroristic threatening and revoked the suspended sentence, sentencing him to 18 months in the DOC with additional time suspended and continued no-contact conditions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether State proved by preponderance that Coupey committed 1st‑degree terroristic threatening (probation violation) | Dishno: Coupey threatened to cut his throat; officer corroborated screen tampering and calls | Coupey: Dishno’s testimony inconsistent, faulty memory, not credible | Court: Evidence sufficient; credited Dishno and officer’s testimony (revocation affirmed) |
| Whether confrontation clause violated when officer testified that two women told him “basically the same story” | State: Officer’s mention was harmless; women wouldn’t have testified to the phone call itself | Coupey: Admission of out-of-court statements deprived him of confrontation rights | Court: No violation—women’s statements were not central and court relied on Dishno’s direct testimony |
Key Cases Cited
- (No cases with official reporter citations were relied upon in the opinion for inclusion under the required format.)