Thomas v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 492

On October 25, 2011, Xavier Thomas ("appellant") was tried and convicted by a jury of first-degree murder (Paul Fells) and attempted first-degree murder (Thristian Hunter); sentence 44 years' imprisonment.
Hunter testified he met appellant (known as "Zay"), who showed a gun, made repeated calls to Fells, and then shot Fells in the head and shot Hunter multiple times while Hunter fled; Hunter identified appellant in a post‑incident photo lineup and at trial.
Police recovered phone records showing multiple missed calls to Fells from a contact labeled "X" the evening of the shooting; several photo lineups were shown before the one including appellant.
Appellant moved for directed verdicts arguing insufficient evidence of identity and elements; trial denied and jury convicted after eyewitness testimony.
During trial, defense testimony elicited (without contemporaneous objection) statements suggesting a jail relationship between appellant and Fells; the court ruled that line of testimony opened the door to impeachment with prior incarcerations if appellant testified.
Appellant complained the court denied his Sixth Amendment right to counsel of choice after two public defenders withdrew for conflicts and appointed counsel remained; he requested new counsel two days before trial and cited dissatisfaction with plea offers.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Thomas)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence / directed verdict	Hunter's eyewitness ID, photo lineup, phone records and circumstances supply substantial evidence of identity and mens rea	State failed to prove appellant was shooter or prove elements beyond suspicion	Affirmed: one eyewitness identification + supporting evidence is sufficient; substantial evidence supports convictions
Admission of prior incarceration (impeachment)	Door opened by defense questioning about a possible jail relationship; if appellant testified, prior convictions would be admissible for impeachment	Admission of prior incarceration would be more prejudicial than probative under Rules 403/404(b)	Not preserved for review; trial court did not err in ruling door open given defense‑elicited testimony; no ruling on Rule 403/404(b) specifics
Right to counsel of choice / request for new counsel or continuance	Court balanced defendant's rights with need for orderly administration; appellant had long opportunity to retain counsel and offered only dissatisfaction with plea	Denial of right to chosen counsel and denial of continuance prejudiced appellant	No abuse of discretion: request made two days before trial, no identified replacement, reason was merely displeasure with plea; right not violated

LeFever v. State, 91 Ark. App. 86 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
Kaufman v. State, 2013 Ark. 126 (Ark. 2013) (definition of substantial evidence)
Baughman v. State, 353 Ark. 1 (Ark. 2003) (jury credibility determinations)
Ellis v. State, 2012 Ark. 65 (Ark. 2012) (one eyewitness can sustain a conviction)
Harmon v. State, 340 Ark. 18 (Ark. 2000) (appellate deference to jury credibility findings)
Williams v. State, 351 Ark. 215 (Ark. 2002) (limits on disregarding witness testimony)
Dunn v. State, 371 Ark. 140 (Ark. 2007) (presumption that defendants intend natural consequences)
Riley v. State, 2012 Ark. 462 (Ark. 2012) (preservation requirement for appellate review of evidentiary objections)
Bullock v. State, 353 Ark. 577 (Ark. 2003) (right to counsel of choice is not absolute)
Smith v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 613 (Ark. Ct. App. 2012) (standards for continuance and showing prejudice)
Thorne v. State, 269 Ark. 556 (Ark. 1980) (case-by-case analysis for continuance when right to counsel implicated)