J.N.A. v. State
2017 Ark. App. 502
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- J.N.A., a 17-year-old, was charged in juvenile court with breaking/entering vehicles, fleeing, aggravated assault, resisting arrest, and theft by receiving after a predawn incident on July 24, 2016.
- The State moved to try him as an adult or, alternatively, to designate the matter as Extended Juvenile Jurisdiction (EJJ); the circuit court entered an EJJ designation order on September 2, 2016.
- After a bench trial on October 3, 2016, the court adjudicated J.N.A. delinquent on all five counts and placed him on probation (order entered October 4, 2016).
- Appellant appealed the October 4 adjudication/disposition order on October 27, 2016 but did not timely or specifically appeal the earlier September 2 EJJ designation order.
- Facts at trial: officers pursued appellant, who ran through yards and jumped into a wet, poorly lit concrete drainage canal; during a physical struggle Officer Ohm suffered a fractured humerus and observed appellant with a .25‑caliber handgun in his pocket (appellant allegedly had a hand on the gun and was pulling it out); other stolen items and the gun were found in the canal.
- The trial court found sufficient evidence to adjudicate aggravated assault (based on conduct creating a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to Officer Ohm).
Issues
| Issue | Appellant's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the EJJ designation order was defective and unsupported | Trial court failed to make required written findings on all statutory EJJ factors and clearly erred in designating EJJ | EJJ order is a final appealable order but appellant failed to timely and specifically appeal that order | No jurisdiction to review EJJ-designation challenges because appellant filed notice of appeal late and did not designate the EJJ order |
| Whether evidence was sufficient to support aggravated-assault adjudication | No evidence gun was loaded, no verbal threats, appellant never drew the gun — insufficient to show substantial danger of death/serious injury | Officer’s testimony and circumstances (wet, slippery, close struggle, officer injured, appellant hand on gun) supported inference of intent and substantial danger | Sufficient evidence: viewing facts in favor of State, court found aggravated assault proven (affirmed) |
Key Cases Cited
- Wooten v. State, 32 Ark. App. 198, 799 S.W.2d 560 (distinguishing facts where gun not pointed or threats made; aggravated-assault requires substantial danger)
- Swaim v. State, 78 Ark. App. 176, 79 S.W.3d 853 (reversed aggravated-assault where weapon displayed but not directed at officer and no substantial danger shown)
- Harmon v. State, 340 Ark. 18, 8 S.W.3d 472 (intent may be inferred from natural and probable consequences of acts)
- Williams v. State, 96 Ark. App. 277, 241 S.W.3d 290 (fact-finder considers totality of evidence; need not view facts in isolation)
- Brady v. Alken, 273 Ark. 147, 617 S.W.2d 358 (filing of a notice of appeal is jurisdictional and timeliness is required)