Howard v. State
2016 Ark. 434
| Ark. | 2016Background
- In December 1997 Brian and Shannon Day were killed and their infant son Trevor nearly strangled; Brian’s body was found in a U-Haul on Howard family property; Shannon was found in the Days’ home bound and with blunt-force and strangulation injuries. Trevor was found alive with a cord around his neck.
- Howard had been with the Days in the early morning hours, drove the U-Haul, and was linked to the vehicle by his fingerprints; a .38-caliber projectile killed Brian and Howard had been seen possessing a .38 the day before.
- Boots matching Howard’s style were found near the crime scene with Brian’s blood on one boot and hairs matching Howard inside; Howard later wore tennis shoes and denied being there.
- Howard purchased a large tool box the morning the bodies were discovered (sufficient to conceal a body), disposed of or said he disposed of Shannon’s belongings, and instructed witnesses to withhold information about cash; a Mountain Dew bottle with Howard’s fingerprint was found at the Days’ home.
- Howard fled the area, avoided police contact, made inconsistent statements, and had a nylon bag recovered from a car containing rope and tape.
- This was a retrial ordered after coram nobis relief; a jury convicted Howard of two counts of second-degree murder and attempted second-degree murder for Trevor; Howard moved for directed verdicts and appealed the denial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Howard) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence / directed verdict | Circumstantial and direct evidence (fingerprints on U-Haul, blood on boots, hairs, possession of .38, tool box purchase, evasive conduct, fingerprints on bottle, bindings like those he owned) supports conviction | Evidence is circumstantial and consistent with other hypotheses; challenges to provenance of blood, boots, carpet-drag theory, lack of his blood/fibers on victims, other possible suspects and motive, investigative gaps | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports convictions; verdict must be viewed in light most favorable to State |
| Use of circumstantial evidence to convict | Circumstantial proof can support guilt when consistent with guilt and inconsistent with other reasonable hypotheses | Argues circumstantial proof here does not exclude other reasonable hypotheses | Affirmed — circumstantial evidence here was sufficient for jury to find guilt |
| Inferences from consciousness of guilt / post-crime conduct | Flight, inconsistent statements, efforts to hide belongings, telling others not to report money, and avoidance of police show consciousness of guilt and support inference of culpability | Post-crime conduct is equivocal or explained by fear; does not prove homicide | Affirmed — jury permissibly considered concealment and evasive conduct as evidence of guilt |
| Role of witness credibility and conflicts in testimony | Jury may resolve witness credibility and infer guilt from testimony and physical evidence | Disputed witness accounts undermine State’s theories and require reasonable doubt | Affirmed — credibility is for the jury; conflicts do not require directed verdict when substantial evidence supports conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Brooks v. State, 498 S.W.3d 292 (Ark. 2016) (directed-verdict/sufficiency standard)
- Wells v. State, 430 S.W.3d 65 (Ark. 2013) (sufficiency test)
- Sylvester v. State, 489 S.W.3d 146 (Ark. 2016) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Mercouri v. State, 480 S.W.3d 864 (Ark. 2016) (view evidence in light most favorable to State)
- Chatmon v. State, 467 S.W.3d 731 (Ark. 2015) (circumstantial evidence can support conviction)
- Airsman v. State, 451 S.W.3d 565 (Ark. 2014) (circumstantial-evidence requirements)
- Dixon v. State, 385 S.W.3d 164 (Ark. 2011) (jury decides whether circumstantial evidence excludes reasonable hypotheses)
- Green v. State, 430 S.W.3d 729 (Ark. 2013) (credibility for jury)
- Conte v. State, 463 S.W.3d 686 (Ark. 2015) (jury’s latitude to believe portions of testimony)
- Barrett v. State, 119 S.W.3d 483 (Ark. 2003) (concealment and evasion as evidence of consciousness of guilt)
- Hill v. State, 773 S.W.2d 424 (Ark. 1989) (false or contradictory statements as probative)
- Roderick v. State, 705 S.W.2d 433 (Ark. 1986) (last-seen-with rule discussed)