Mosley v. State
2017 Ark. App. 487
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- At ~3:00 a.m. on March 27, 2015, Williams Tractor in Fayetteville triggered a silent alarm; employees and police found a Polaris Razor ATV missing, two zero-turn mowers out of gas, tire tracks, and a makeshift ramp from the property.
- Security footage from a neighboring business showed two or three unidentified men, a white Chevy Tahoe, and a U-Haul at the rear of Williams Tractor between 2:28 a.m. and 3:03 a.m.
- Officers matched shoe prints at the scene to Ledrick Hinton, who was arrested; while questioning Hinton, detectives reviewed his phone contacts and identified two active numbers labeled "Mark" and "Mark in the Dark."
- Cell‑tower records tied the AT&T number (identified later as Mosley’s) to the vicinity of Williams Tractor around the theft and to Palestine, AR, later that morning; Mosley owned a white 2002 Chevy Tahoe similar to the vehicle seen on tape.
- Larry Wilson testified that Mosley (known to him as “Mark the ‘Little Rock Man’”) contacted him the morning of March 27 to sell a Polaris Razor from a U‑Haul in a Palestine parking lot; Mosley offered the Razor for $8,500.
- Mosley was tried on commercial burglary, theft of property (class C felony), and habitual-offender enhancement; acquitted of burglary, convicted of theft, and sentenced to 120 months (10 years) as a habitual offender.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft of property | State: circumstantial evidence (phone records, surveillance, vehicle ownership, attempted sale) supports conviction | Mosley: evidence only shows he had control of the Razor outside the charging county and is insufficient to prove he knowingly deprived Williams Tractor | Court: evidence (cell‑tower data, phone links, vehicle match, attempted sale) was substantial and supported conviction |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinton v. State, 477 S.W.3d 517 (Ark. 2015) (standard for reviewing directed‑verdict/sufficiency challenges and credibility as jury province)
- Wyles v. State, 249 S.W.3d 782 (Ark. 2007) (circumstantial evidence can be sufficient and must be inconsistent with every reasonable hypothesis of innocence)
- Boyd v. State, 500 S.W.3d 772 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (application of substantial‑evidence and circumstantial‑evidence standards)