Whitworth v. State
2017 Ark. App. 462
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Clarence Whitworth was charged (amended to attempted residential burglary) for allegedly inserting his arms and head through a kitchen window of Chanel Johnson’s residence on June 23, 2014, while holding a small bag; he fled when confronted.
- Johnson (the homeowner’s daughter) testified she saw Whitworth at the window, that the kitchen window was known not to close properly, and that Whitworth had been familiar with the house from prior visits.
- Whitworth conceded prior access and acquaintance with the residence, said he had a key through his girlfriend (Johnson’s mother), and claimed he was at work that day; his employer testified Whitworth was fired on June 23.
- Defense moved to dismiss for insufficiency of evidence as to Whitworth’s intent to commit theft inside the home; the trial court denied the motion and convicted after a bench trial.
- On appeal the State conceded the sentencing classification error (Class B vs. Class C) but defended sufficiency of evidence that Whitworth intended to commit theft; the Court of Appeals reversed the conviction for insufficient evidence of specific intent to commit theft.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove Whitworth entered with purpose to commit theft inside the residence | State: circumstantial facts (entry through window, possession of small bag, flight, familiarity with house) support inference of intent to steal | Whitworth: illegal entry and flight, without evidence of stolen property, prior thefts, or other indicia, do not prove intent to commit theft | Reversed: evidence did not exclude other reasonable inferences; State failed to prove specific intent to commit theft |
| Whether sentencing classification was correct (Class B vs. Class C) | State conceded error in classification | Whitworth argued sentence classification was incorrect | Moot after reversal; State conceded classification error |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. State, 385 S.W.3d 214 (standards for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence)
- Forgy v. State, 790 S.W.2d 173 (specific intent cannot be inferred solely from unlawful entry)
- Norton v. State, 609 S.W.2d 1 (burden on State to prove intent; intent not presumed from entry)
- Wortham v. State, 634 S.W.2d 141 (flight upon discovery, without other evidence, insufficient to establish intent to commit theft)
- Washington v. State, 599 S.W.2d 408 (entry-related facts must show probative force to infer purpose to commit theft)