Wells v. State
2012 Ark. App. 596
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Wells was convicted in Hot Spring County Circuit Court of attempted first-degree murder and two counts of committing a terroristic act; habitual-offender sentences totaled 131 years with firearm-enhancement terms and consecutive run.
- The incidents spanned February 12–13, 2010, including a Malvern shooting at Rodriguez and a Hot Springs homicide; shell casings and bullets tied to the same firearm as part of forensic evidence.
- Arkansas State Crime Lab linked shell casings and bullets from both incidents to the same gun; a gun found in connection with the Hot Springs homicide was inconclusive as the weapon for Rodriguez’s shooting.
- Wells made a custodial statement on February 17, 2010, after Miranda rights were read; the statement described a rampage and shooting at a store and at Rodriguez, and he admitted losing his mind.
- Defense moved for directed verdict on all counts; trial court denied, and the jury returned guilty verdicts.
- During sentencing, Wells’s mother testified about his mental health history and age; some pretrial and trial evidence concerns, including Rule 404(b) and hearsay issues, were raised and addressed on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for attempted murder | Wells arguing lack of intent to shoot Rodriguez personally. | State contends intent can be inferred from firing at door after knocking. | Substantial evidence supports attempted murder. |
| Sufficiency of evidence for terroristic act | Wells contends shooting at Rodriguez did not target an occupiable structure. | Continued shooting as door closed meant bullets hit the trailer, satisfying statute. | Substantial evidence supports terroristic-act convictions. |
| Admission of custodial statement | Statement should have been suppressed as involuntary under totality-of-circumstances. | Waiver and voluntariness supported; experienced officers; Miranda rights understood. | Trial court did not clearly err; statement properly denied suppression. |
| Admission of Hot Springs homicide under Rule 404(b) | Evidence admissible to show design, intent, identity, etc., linking to Rodriguez shooting. | Evidence prejudicial and improperly offered; insufficient limiting instructions. | Court did not abuse discretion; 404(b) evidence properly admitted with limiting instruction. |
| Hearsay objection to Ussery's testimony | Bullet trajectory testimony corroborative of Rodriguez’s account. | Testimony constitutes improper hearsay. | Trial court not shown to err; testimony was admissible as lay opinion and cumulative. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. State, 362 Ark. 34 (2005) (Rule 404(b) standards; must show independent relevance)
- Grillot v. State, 353 Ark. 294 (2003) (voluntariness of waiver; totality-of-circumstances review)
- Britt v. State, 83 Ark.App. 117 (2003) (credibility determinations defer to trial court)
- Smith v. State, 2010 Ark. 75 (2010) (relevant to Rule 404(b) admissibility and remoteness)
- Bisbee v. State, 341 Ark. 508 (2000) (independent totality-of-circumstances standard preceding Grillot)
- United States v. Williams, 429 F.3d 767 (8th Cir. 2005) (no automatic requirement for taped confessions)
- Goss v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 304 (2011) (harmless-error and cumulative evidence considerations)
- Anderson v. State, 2011 Ark. 461 (2011) (preservation of error and waiver standards)