Hicks v. State, 2017 Ark. 262

Arthur Hicks, Jr. was convicted by a jury of capital murder for the July 22, 2014 shooting death of Daniel Ruffin; the court later sentenced Hicks to life with parole possible in 28 years plus seven years for firearm use.
Prosecution theory: Hicks caused Ruffin’s death while committing or attempting to commit a robbery; evidence included eyewitnesses who heard Hicks demand Ruffin’s phone, heard a gun cock, and saw Hicks raise and fire a gun at point‑blank range.
Eyewitnesss Kendall Smith testified Hicks said “What’s in your pockets?” and “I need that,” then shot Ruffin after Ruffin asked if the gun was fake; Kiasean Casey saw Hicks put a gun in his pocket and flee after the shot.
Paramedic David Payan testified Ruffin, while being treated and described as alert but scared, told him three men approached, asked what was in Ruffin’s pockets, demanded a phone, and one then shot him; defense objected as hearsay.
Hicks testified the shooting was accidental and denied intending robbery; he also told police he shot Ruffin “for no reason.” The jury convicted; Hicks appealed challenging (1) admission of Payan’s hearsay testimony and (2) sufficiency of evidence for capital murder.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Hicks committed/attempted robbery as underlying felony for capital murder	State: eyewitness testimony (demands, gun cock, pointing, flight) and Payan’s account support attempted robbery and capital‑felony murder	Hicks: gun discharged accidentally; evidence insufficient to show attempted robbery or requisite culpable mental state	Court: Affirmed — substantial evidence supports attempted robbery and capital murder; Hicks’s mental‑state challenge not preserved on appeal
Admissibility of EMT Payan’s testimony about victim’s out‑of‑court statement	State: statement admissible as excited utterance or dying declaration (or other exceptions)	Hicks: statement was inadmissible hearsay and did not fit excited utterance, present sense impression, or dying‑declaration exceptions	Court: Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; statement admissible as excited utterance (concurrence would apply medical‑diagnosis exception)

Bowker v. State, 363 Ark. 345, 214 S.W.3d 243 (reviewing order on double jeopardy concerns)
Whitt v. State, 365 Ark. 580, 232 S.W.3d 459 (standard for treating directed‑verdict motion as sufficiency challenge)
Tillman v. State, 364 Ark. 143, 217 S.W.3d 773 (substantial‑evidence review and circumstantial evidence rules)
Flowers v. State, 342 Ark. 45, 25 S.W.3d 422 (underlying felony is essential element of capital‑felony murder)
Flores v. State, 348 Ark. 28, 69 S.W.3d 864 (analysis of hearsay exceptions and Flores/Iron Shell two‑part test)
Davis v. State, 362 Ark. 34, 207 S.W.3d 474 (factors for excited‑utterance exception)
Moore v. State, 317 Ark. 630, 882 S.W.2d 667 (excited‑utterance factors adopted from Eighth Circuit)
United States v. Iron Shell, 633 F.2d 77 (8th Cir.) (two‑part test applied to hearsay exceptions)