Sammie L. Thomas, Jr. v. State of Arkansas, 598 S.W.3d 41

On Sept. 8–9, 2016, Robert Givens was shot in the temple while driving; his daughter Lacrease survived. Witnesses identified the shooter’s vehicle as a tan/gold older SUV.
Eyewitness Andrea Hall (passenger in Thomas’s vehicle) testified Thomas angrily approached the other SUV, raised a gun, and a single shot struck Givens; Hall testified Thomas later said he didn’t mean to shoot and threatened her to keep quiet.
A .45-caliber shell casing was recovered; crime-scene trajectory analysis supported that a bullet entered the driver’s side area and struck Givens.
Police developed Thomas as a suspect; Jana Kelly (owner of a tan Buick) had added Thomas to her AT&T plan and provided a screenshot from a location‑sharing app placing Thomas’s phone near the shooting; police obtained AT&T Historical Precision Location Information (HPLI) by warrant.
Thomas was tried for capital murder (Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101(a)(10)), convicted, and sentenced to life without parole. He appealed on sufficiency-of-evidence and suppression (CSLI/HPLI) grounds.
The circuit court denied Thomas’s suppression motion (found Kelly could track the phone and alternatively found the warrant valid); on appeal the Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and, because Thomas did not contest the court’s alternative basis for admitting CSLI, affirmed the suppression ruling.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thomas)	Held
Sufficiency: Did evidence establish capital murder (purposeful discharge from a vehicle causing death with extreme indifference)?	Evidence showed Thomas drew a gun, pointed it at an occupied vehicle, discharged it, and the shot killed Givens; ballistic/eyewitness evidence supported purposeful discharge and extreme indifference.	The shooting was accidental (fumble), Hall’s testimony that Thomas said he didn’t mean to shoot, trajectory and his cast indicate lack of purposeful discharge or requisite mens rea.	Affirmed: Viewing evidence favorably to the verdict, substantial evidence supported purposeful discharge; intent to kill not required; firing into an occupied vehicle establishes extreme indifference.
Suppression: Were Thomas’s CSLI/HPLI records protected and improperly obtained?	Police had probable cause and a valid warrant; Kelly’s voluntary screenshot and her ability to track the phone diminished Thomas’s privacy claim.	Under Carpenter, Thomas had a reasonable expectation of privacy in CSLI; affidavit insufficient and warrant overbroad.	Affirmed: Circuit court denied suppression; on appeal court declined to reach privacy issue because Thomas did not challenge the court’s independent holding that the warrant was valid.

Holly v. State, 2017 Ark. 201 (explains standard for reviewing directed‑verdict/sufficiency challenges)
Hardman v. State, 356 Ark. 7 (2004) (clarifies that capital‑murder statute’s purposeful mens rea applies to the discharge act, not necessarily intent to kill)
Price v. State, 373 Ark. 435 (2008) (firing into an occupied vehicle supports finding of extreme indifference to human life)
Arnold v. State, 2018 Ark. 343 (jury’s role in resolving conflicts and weighing evidence)
Carpenter v. United States, 138 S. Ct. 2206 (2018) (addresses expectation of privacy in historical cell‑site/location data)
Wilson v. State, 2014 Ark. 8 (standard for appellate review of suppression rulings)
Fuson v. State, 2011 Ark. 374 (court may affirm where circuit court relied on independent alternative grounds not challenged on appeal)