Devor v. State
389 S.W.3d 22
Ark. Ct. App.2012Background
- Appellant Bob Devor was convicted by jury in Washington County Circuit Court of hindering apprehension or prosecution and sentenced to ten years and $15,000 fine.
- State alleged Devor provided money and transportation to Dee to flee, and lied or provided misleading information to deter investigation.
- Evidence focused on Devor’s actions and statements after Polly Devor’s disappearance, including meetings, money/vehicle transfers, and inconsistent narratives.
- Accomplices Dee and Monica testified they committed Polly’s murder; their testimony required corroboration under the jury instruction.
- Trial occurred in January 2011; the State challenged sufficiency of the corroboration and the purpose element; the appellate court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the evidence suffices to convict on hindering | Devor provided money/transportation to Dee to avoid apprehension | Providing money/transportation is ordinary support, not hindering purposes | Affirmed: evidence supports purpose to hinder and sufficient corroboration found |
| Whether accomplice testimony required corroboration | Dee and Monica’s testimony needed corroboration | Corroboration not required if evidence shows hindering purpose | Affirmed: corroborating evidence exists and supports conviction |
| Whether Devor’s rumors/actions established hindering intent | Rumors and inconsistent stories show hindering purpose | Rumors lacking falsity or purpose to hinder | Affirmed: circumstantial evidence supports intent to hinder |
Key Cases Cited
- Britt v. State, 118 S.W.3d 140 (Ark. App. 2003) (substantial evidence standard for sufficiency review and favoring State)
- Meadows v. State, 199 S.W.3d 634 (Ark. 2004) (credibility reserved to the fact-finder)
- Watson v. State, 188 S.W.3d 921 (Ark. 2004) (intent inferred from circumstances)
- MacKool v. State, 231 S.W.3d 676 (Ark. 2006) (jurors may infer guilt from circumstances)
- Workman v. State, 589 S.W.2d 20 (Ark. 1979) (statutory focus on intent to hinder rather than certainty)
- Riley v. State, 343 S.W.3d 327 (Ark. App. 2009) (accomplice testimony requires corroboration)
- Hopes v. State, 816 S.W.2d 167 (Ark. 1991) (hindering requires underlying crime)
- Tyler v. State, 581 S.W.2d 328 (Ark. 1979) (hindering requires underlying crime)
- Ritchie v. State, 790 S.W.2d 919 (Ark. App. 1990) (accomplice testimony corroboration context)