West v. State
2017 Ark. App. LEXIS 471
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- James Elijah West was convicted of aggravated robbery and first-degree battery for shooting and robbing Alexander Oliver on Oct. 25, 2014; sentenced as a habitual offender to consecutive 180-month terms.
- Prosecution witnesses included Philemon “Casey” Tops (accomplice-at-law), Mahogany Aalseth (charged but agreed to testify), and Brendan Campbell (juvenile, not charged); all testified West participated in the break-in, robbery, and shooting.
- Tops, Aalseth, and Campbell testified Aalseth drove the group to Oliver’s house; West (called “Slim”) allegedly brought a backpack, displayed a handgun, and a gunshot wounded Oliver.
- A black backpack found outside the house contained Oliver’s shoes and, on later examination, a cell phone; texts/photos extracted from the phone linked West and Tops and referenced planned robberies.
- West moved for directed verdicts arguing insufficient evidence and that testimony tying him to the scene came only from interested witnesses/accomplices; he also sought jury instructions declaring Aalseth and Campbell accomplices as a matter of law.
- The trial court denied directed-verdict motions and refused to declare Aalseth and Campbell accomplices as a matter of law; the jury received accomplice-status and corroboration instructions and convicted West.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (West) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to convict West of aggravated robbery and 1st-degree battery | Evidence (witness testimony, backpack contents, phone data) corroborated accomplice testimony and connected West to the crimes | Only interested accomplice witnesses placed West at the scene; victims did not identify West; backpack/phone link is speculative; grant directed verdict | Affirmed — substantial evidence corroborated Tops and connected West to the crimes; Campbell was not necessarily an accomplice and his testimony helped corroborate |
| Whether Aalseth and Campbell should be declared accomplices as a matter of law | N/A (State opposed jury declaration) | Trial court should have declared them accomplices as a matter of law (or at least instructed jury to that effect) | Denied — their status was a mixed fact-law question with disputed testimony, so it was proper to submit to jury rather than declare as a matter of law |
| Whether accomplice corroboration rule was satisfied by non-accomplice evidence (e.g., phone/backpack) | Phone, photos, texts, backpack contents independently tended to connect West to the crime | Phone/backpack were unreliable and could be explained by others; cannot corroborate accomplice testimony without speculation | Affirmed — jury could reasonably find the phone and backpack corroborated accomplice testimony without speculation |
| Adequacy of jury instructions on accomplice status and corroboration | Jury received model accomplice instructions; State argued preservation and correctness | Failure to get an instruction declaring Aalseth and Campbell accomplices as matter of law was error that prejudiced West | No reversible error — instructions letting jury decide accomplice status were appropriate given disputed facts |
Key Cases Cited
- Harmon v. State, 340 Ark. 18, 8 S.W.3d 472 (2000) (one eyewitness’s testimony can sustain conviction; credibility is for the jury)
- Windsor v. State, 338 Ark. 649, 1 S.W.3d 20 (1999) (defendant must request either a court declaration or jury submission on accomplice status to preserve issue)
- McGehee v. State, 348 Ark. 395, 72 S.W.3d 867 (2002) (accomplice status is mixed law and fact; conclusively shown facts may permit a legal determination)
- Grillot v. State, 353 Ark. 294, 107 S.W.3d 136 (2003) (slight evidence supports giving an instruction; trial court’s instruction rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion)
- Cook v. State, 350 Ark. 398, 86 S.W.3d 916 (2002) (scope of accomplice liability and when participants may be held accountable for one another)
- Odom v. State, 259 Ark. 429, 533 S.W.2d 514 (1976) (court should not declare a witness an accomplice as a matter of law if testimony is in dispute)
- Lloyd v. State, 332 Ark. 1, 962 S.W.2d 365 (1998) (defendant must prove a witness is an accomplice whose testimony requires corroboration)
- Blann v. State, 15 Ark. App. 364, 695 S.W.2d 382 (1985) (example where driver’s active participation supported accomplice liability)