Sullivan v. State
2015 Ark. App. 514
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- On January 28, 2013, Eric Criswell was found shot dead at the doorway of his home; eight spent .45-caliber hulls were recovered on the porch/driveway area.
- George Sullivan was arrested after giving a recorded statement that he and Richard Palma had gone to Criswell’s house to confront Criswell’s girlfriend about a drug transaction; Palma furnished the gun.
- Sullivan said Criswell lunged at him as if concealing a weapon and that he "blacked out," firing eight "warning shots," two of which struck Criswell (one fatally in the chest).
- At trial the recorded statement and eyewitness testimony (including Josh Hardiman, who said Criswell never left the porch or “charged”) were played; the jury convicted Sullivan of second-degree murder.
- Sullivan moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case, arguing the State failed to negate his justification (self-defense) claim; the trial court denied the motion.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed the denial of the directed verdict as a sufficiency challenge and affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sullivan) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Sufficiency of the evidence (directed verdict) | The State produced substantial direct and circumstantial evidence to support conviction; evidence should be viewed in the light most favorable to conviction. | Sullivan contends the evidence was insufficient and the directed-verdict motion should have been granted. | Court: Evidence was substantial; denial of directed verdict affirmed. |
| 2. Whether the State negated justification (self-defense) | The State showed Sullivan initiated the confrontation, fired multiple shots (establishing extreme indifference), and eyewitness testimony contradicted his account. | Sullivan argued he was justified because Criswell lunged as if armed and he fired in self-defense. | Court: Jury could reject justification; State negated the defense. |
| 3. Mens rea for second-degree murder (knowing conduct / extreme indifference) | Firing a loaded gun at a person and discharging eight shots constitutes deliberate conduct manifesting extreme indifference to life. | Sullivan argued firing below door-handle level, lack of blood on porch, and Criswell’s "are you serious?" suggested no intent to kill or knowledge of causing death. | Court: Pointing a loaded gun and firing multiple shots (including one to chest) supports knowing conduct and extreme indifference; Sullivan’s arguments unpersuasive. |
| 4. Whether defendant created the necessity for self-defense | State: Sullivan went to Criswell’s home armed, remained after Criswell went inside, and could not rely on justification if he created the dangerous situation. | Sullivan: He was defending himself from an armed or threatening attack by Criswell. | Court: Sullivan created the situation and jury could find his use of deadly force unreasonable; justification unavailable. |
Key Cases Cited
- Williamson v. State, 350 S.W.3d 787 (2009) (standard for reviewing denial of directed verdict / sufficiency)
- Flowers v. State, 282 S.W.3d 767 (2008) (sufficiency review principles)
- Price v. State, 284 S.W.3d 462 (2008) (evidence-viewing standard on appeal)
- Price v. State, 66 S.W.3d 653 (2002) (pointing a loaded gun can satisfy intent for murder)
- Lewis v. State, 451 S.W.3d 591 (2014) (justification is raised by any evidence and then must be disproved by State)
- Byrd v. State, 992 S.W.2d 759 (1999) (definition of extreme indifference for second-degree murder)
- Peals v. State, 584 S.W.2d 1 (1979) (defendant cannot claim self-defense if he created the situation)