Walter McCray, Jr. v. State of Arkansas
598 S.W.3d 509
Ark.2020Background
- Walter McCray was charged with multiple felonies arising from a July 29, 2017 Family Dollar robbery; several counts were later nol prossed and trial proceeded on aggravated robbery, theft, and firearms offenses.
- At trial McCray wore underwear with eyeholes over his head, pointed a gun, demanded money, took a bag containing the cash-register till, and left; he was arrested immediately after exiting the store.
- While McCray initially got the money from one employee (Cossey), he and assistant manager Hence struggled during which McCray dropped the bag, then pushed Hence away, retrieved the bag, pointed the gun at Hence, and left.
- A jury convicted McCray of two counts of aggravated robbery (victims Cossey and Hence), theft of property, and found firearm use; prior violent felonies triggered automatic life sentences on the aggravated-robbery counts.
- McCray moved for a directed verdict as to the aggravated-robbery conviction with Hence (arguing the struggle was over the gun, not the money) and moved to dismiss for lack of a speedy trial; both motions were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (McCray) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for aggravated robbery as to Hence | Evidence (video, testimony) shows McCray pushed Hence away from the bag, exercised unauthorized control over the money, and threatened force with a firearm; therefore robbery/aggravated robbery is supported | The struggle with Hence was over the gun and the theft was already complete; pointing the gun afterward was gratuitous and not to facilitate theft | Verdict affirmed: substantial evidence supports robbery and aggravated robbery because McCray retrieved the bag by using force and threatened force with a firearm |
| Denial of motion to dismiss for speedy trial | Continuances requested by defense counsel are excludable under Ark. R. Crim. P. 28.3(c); record shows counsel requested multiple continuances that tolled speedy-trial time | Continuances were requested by defense counsel, not by McCray personally, so they should not be excluded and McCray’s trial occurred outside the 12-month period | Denial affirmed: the State met its burden showing excluded delays; continuances by counsel properly tolled speedy-trial time |
Key Cases Cited
- Taffner v. State, 2018 Ark. 99, 541 S.W.3d 430 (Ark. 2018) (appeal from denial of directed-verdict motion treated as a sufficiency challenge)
- Howard v. State, 2016 Ark. 434, 506 S.W.3d 843 (Ark. 2016) (substantial-evidence standard explained)
- Fletcher v. State, 2018 Ark. 261, 555 S.W.3d 858 (Ark. 2018) (reviewing sufficiency by viewing evidence in light most favorable to State)
- Wilson v. State, 2017 Ark. 217, 521 S.W.3d 123 (Ark. 2017) (intent normally inferred from circumstances)
- Perkins v. State, 2019 Ark. 247, 582 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2019) (de novo review on whether periods are excludable under speedy-trial rules)
- Gamble v. State, 350 Ark. 168, 85 S.W.3d 520 (Ark. 2002) (continuance when counsel absent tolled speedy-trial time)
- Yarbrough v. State, 370 Ark. 31, 257 S.W.3d 50 (Ark. 2007) (once prima facie speedy-trial violation shown, State bears burden to justify delay)
- Huddleston v. State, 339 Ark. 266, 5 S.W.3d 46 (Ark. 1999) (continuances requested by counsel are excludable even if defendant did not personally approve)