Horton v. State
2017 Ark. App. 481
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- On August 6, 2015, Terra Horton entered a Dollar General in North Little Rock; an undercover loss-prevention officer, Gerald Watson, testified he saw her put a bottle of laundry detergent into her purse and that the purse bulged afterward.
- Horton paid for other items but did not pay for the detergent according to Watson; no in-store video footage of the concealment or post-exit recovery of the detergent was available.
- Watson confronted Horton in the parking lot, identified himself as loss prevention, and attempted to block her; he reached into her car and grabbed her identification as she resisted and drove away.
- Watson reported the license-plate number; Horton was stopped about one block away, claimed she had paid and felt threatened, and was arrested for robbery.
- At a bench trial, Horton moved to dismiss arguing the State had not proven a theft occurred (no recovered property, inconsistent video); the court denied the motion, convicted her of robbery, and sentenced her to five years’ probation.
Issues
| Issue | Horton's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the State proved the underlying theft required for robbery | No proof of theft — no recovered property, no in-store video showing concealment, and discrepancies with parking-lot video | Watson’s testimony that he saw concealment and the purse bulge, plus Horton's flight and use of force, support inference of theft | Affirmed: sufficient evidence of theft and intent to steal to support robbery conviction |
| Whether physical force to resist apprehension was proven | Did not directly contest force element; emphasized lack of theft evidence | Watson’s account and parking-lot video showed Horton pushed and struck him with the car/door while fleeing | Affirmed: evidence supported that Horton employed physical force to resist apprehension |
| Standard for reviewing motion to dismiss/ directed verdict in bench trial | Argued circumstantial evidence was insufficient, raising reasonable doubt | State relied on circumstantial evidence and precedent allowing inferences from flight and concealment | Court applied sufficiency-of-evidence standard, viewing evidence in State’s favor and found substantial evidence existed |
| Whether circumstantial evidence (flight, bulging purse) can establish specific intent to steal | Argued circumstances permitted innocent explanations; lack of recovered item created reasonable doubt | Argued that flight and concealment are consistent only with theft, permitting inference of specific intent | Held that circumstantial evidence was consistent with guilt and sufficient to infer specific intent |
Key Cases Cited
- Jarrett v. State, 265 Ark. 662, 580 S.W.2d 460 (1979) (security-guard observation of concealment and assault on guard supported robbery conviction)
- McElyea v. State, 360 Ark. 229, 200 S.W.3d 881 (2005) (definition of physical force under robbery statute)
- Cartwright v. State, 501 S.W.3d 849 (Ark. App. 2016) (flight is evidence of criminal intent)
- Matthews v. State, 319 S.W.3d 266 (Ark. 2009) (robbery requires specific intent to commit theft)