Kinsey v. State
2016 Ark. 393
Ark.2016Background
- On June 26, 2013, Gregory Aaron Kinsey attacked Brandon Prince and Nathan Young with a machete; both victims died. Kinsey was convicted by a Sebastian County jury of first- and second-degree murder and sentenced to consecutive terms of 40 and 30 years.
- Eyewitness testimony (Nathan Maynard and Prince’s son) described Kinsey squatting in an alley, producing a machete, and repeatedly striking both victims; a nearby witness struck Kinsey with a two-by-four during the incident.
- Kinsey gave a recorded statement saying he was peering into a yard to check for a man who had abused his mother, that the victims confronted him, he felt threatened, and he ‘‘started swinging’’ the machete; he admitted pursuing and continuing to strike one victim and later said ‘‘there’s no justifying’’ the conduct.
- Medical examiner testimony established fatal ‘‘chop’’ wounds: Prince suffered a single artery-severing blow; Young sustained multiple (8–11) chop wounds.
- Kinsey raised self‑defense/justification; he moved for directed verdicts claiming the State failed to negate self‑defense, and proffered a modified jury instruction allocating the burden on the State to disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt.
- The trial court denied directed verdicts, gave the model AMI Crim. 2d 705 instruction on justification, and admitted limited evidence of prior aggressive incidents during sentencing after finding the defense ‘‘opened the door.’'
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Kinsey) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: did State negate self‑defense? | State: evidence (eyewitnesses, statement, ME) supports convictions and negates justification. | Kinsey: State failed to disprove self‑defense; directed verdict required. | Not preserved for appeal—directed‑verdict motions were too general; court affirmed. |
| Jury instruction on justification burden | State: model instruction (AMI Crim. 2d 705) correctly states law; no need for defendant’s proposed wording. | Kinsey: model misallocates burden by implying defendant must raise reasonable doubt; requested instruction properly placed burden on State. | Court affirmed use of model instruction as complete statement of law; rejected Kinsey’s proffered instruction. |
| Admission of past‑behavior evidence at sentencing | State: broad favorable character testimony opened the door to cross‑examination about prior aggression/uncharged incidents; such evidence is admissible at penalty phase. | Kinsey: cross‑examination permitted improper, prejudicial evidence of past machete incident; should have been excluded. | Court held defense opened the door with broad question about aggressiveness; admission was within sentencing‑phase rules and not an abuse of discretion. |
| (Dissent) Whether model instruction relieved State of burden | State (majority): model does not relieve State; factual question for jury whether defense was raised. | Dissent (Danielson, J.): AMI 2d 705 is incomplete—omits that State must disprove justification beyond reasonable doubt; omission is reversible error. | Majority rejected dissent; affirmed conviction and instructions; dissent would reverse and remand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitt v. State, 365 Ark. 580 (substantial‑evidence standard for sufficiency review)
- Tillman v. State, 364 Ark. 143 (courts view evidence in light most favorable to State on sufficiency challenges)
- Doles v. State, 275 Ark. 448 (justification not affirmative defense; becomes defense when any evidence tends to support it)
- Anderson v. State, 353 Ark. 384 (prosecution must negate justification once raised; burden discussion for self‑defense instructions)
- Humphrey v. State, 332 Ark. 398 (State’s burden to disprove justification beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Cluck v. State, 365 Ark. 166 (model jury instructions need not be supplemented when they accurately state law)