Davis v. State
2016 Ark. App. 274
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- On Jan. 12, 2013, Shana Henderson was carjacked at a Little Rock Valero station after an African-American male approached her, lifted his shirt to display what she perceived as a gun handle in his waistband, then entered and drove off in her 2007 Kia Amanti.
- Henderson later described the assailant and identified Brandon Davis from a six-photo lineup and at trial; she reported the weapon as a semiautomatic.
- The stolen vehicle was recovered three days later; latent fingerprints from the driver’s-side window and the interior rearview mirror matched Davis (middle and ring fingers on the window; thumb on the mirror).
- Davis was charged with aggravated robbery, theft, and a statutory firearm-use enhancement; a jury convicted him of aggravated robbery and theft and found the firearm enhancement applicable.
- Trial court sentenced Davis to 10 years (robbery), 1 year county jail (theft), and 1 year enhancement for firearm use. Davis appealed, arguing insufficient evidence and that the firearm-enhancement instruction was improper.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Davis) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of identification evidence | Victim’s in-court ID, photographic lineup, and fingerprint matches sufficiently identify Davis as perpetrator | Victim’s identification was "problematic" and unreliable; evidence does not sufficiently identify him | Affirmed — jury credibility finding and fingerprint evidence support conviction |
| Sufficiency of evidence that a firearm was employed | Victim’s testimony that assailant displayed a gun handle and her report of a semiautomatic provided a reasonable basis to find a firearm was employed | No gun was recovered; argument that what victim saw might not have been a firearm | Affirmed — testimony provided some evidence that a firearm was employed; jury resolved credibility |
| Jury instruction on firearm enhancement | Instruction was a correct statement of law and had evidentiary basis so jury could consider enhancement | Instruction was improper because no gun was pulled or recovered; insufficient evidence to submit enhancement | Affirmed — model instruction was legally correct and there was some basis in evidence to give it |
Key Cases Cited
- Sweet v. State, 370 S.W.3d 510 (Ark. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Gikonyo v. State, 283 S.W.3d 631 (Ark. App. 2008) (factfinder resolves witness credibility)
- Bush v. State, 206 S.W.3d 268 (Ark. App. 2005) (appellate deference to jury credibility determinations)
- Stipes v. State, 870 S.W.2d 388 (Ark. 1994) (victim identification can sustain conviction)
- Williams v. State, 444 S.W.3d 877 (Ark. App. 2014) (same)
- Jones v. State, 984 S.W.2d 432 (Ark. 1999) (trial court must give an instruction if correct statement of law and supported by some evidence)