Feuget v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 182

Feuget was charged with two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of theft for the Iberia Bank robbery in Little Rock on January 15, 2010.
At trial, Feuget asserted affirmative defenses of mental disease or defect and involuntary intoxication; he was convicted and sentenced to 180 months in the ADC, with a denial of his motion for new trial; timely notice of appeal followed.
Count 1 involved Clint Horne and Count 2 involved Stephen Long; Feuget argued he only threatened Horne and Long witnessed the events and handed over money.
Arkansas law defines robbery and aggravated robbery (threat or use of physical force; weapon/serious injury component), and ownership of property is not an element of aggravated robbery.
The court allowed the jury to infer intent and threat from circumstances; it rejected the argument that only explicit threats to Long were required.
In the new-trial context, the State’s rebuttal witness Dr. Bradley’s testimony about Deplin prescriptions became central to whether Feuget’s intoxication defense could prevail; the circuit court denied relief, and the court affirmed on appeal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence for Count 2	Feuget did not threaten Long; the threat was directed only at Horne.	The jury could infer a threat to Long from Feuget's display of a weapon to Horne and Long's perception of danger.	Sufficient evidence supported Count 2.
Denial of the motion for a new trial based on Dr. Bradley's testimony	Dr. Bradley’s mistaken memory about Deplin prescription misled the jury and prejudiced the involuntary intoxication defense.	The circuit court properly assessed prejudice; the jury heard other evidence and was free to reject intoxication.	Within the circuit court’s discretion; no reversible prejudice.

Hutcheson v. State, 92 Ark.App. 307, 213 S.W.3d 25 (2005) (directed-verdiet standard for sufficiency review)
Spight v. State, 101 Ark.App. 400, 278 S.W.3d 599 (2008) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Dunn v. State, 371 Ark. 140, 264 S.W.3d 504 (2007) (credibility and jury resolution of conflicting testimony)
Robinson v. State, 317 Ark. 17, 875 S.W.2d 837 (1994) (threats to victim can extend to bystanders supporting multiple convictions)
Clemmons v. State, 303 Ark. 354, 796 S.W.2d 583 (1990) (victim perception of deadly weapon and threat considerations)
Wheat v. State, 297 Ark. 502, 763 S.W.2d 79 (1989) (robbery single transaction; focus on threat of harm and theft intent)
McKinzy v. State, 313 Ark. 334, 853 S.W.2d 888 (1993) (robbery focuses on threat of physical harm; ownership not an element)
McDaniel v. Norris, 38 F.3d 385 (1994) (federal view on aggravated robbery when threatening or using force)
Bennett v. State, 307 Ark. 400, 821 S.W.2d 13 (1991) (perjury in testimony and new-trial considerations)
Navarro v. State, 371 Ark. 179, 264 S.W.3d 530 (2007) (jury’s duty to resolve conflicting expert testimony)
Clark v. State, 358 Ark. 469, 192 S.W.3d 248 (2004) (diligence and strategic preparation in trial handling)