Wright v. State, 499 S.W.3d 683

On Dec. 23, 2014, Crawford County deputies James Mirus and Matt McGrew arrested Steven Blake Wright following a domestic-violence complaint by his girlfriend.
While being escorted to the patrol vehicle and during transport, Wright shouted, cursed, made threats (including to kill and to infect with AIDS), and behaved violently and erratically.
Deputies testified Wright repeatedly spat at Deputy Mirus, at one point successfully spitting on him while Mirus had an open wound; Wright also kicked the plexiglass divider, dislodging a shotgun that struck Mirus’s nose.
Mirus was concerned about threats to his family given the small-town setting; backup and medical personnel responded and decontaminated Wright after pepper spray was used.
A jury convicted Wright of aggravated assault on a certified law-enforcement officer, first-degree terroristic threatening, and first-degree criminal mischief (the mischief conviction was not appealed). The trial court imposed concurrent three-year sentences and fines; Wright appealed only the sufficiency of the evidence for the two challenged convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Wright)	Held
Sufficiency to convict for aggravated assault on a certified law-enforcement officer (transferring bodily fluid with intent)	Wright purposely spit and threatened to infect Deputy Mirus (knew Mirus was an officer), satisfying elements of Ark. Code § 5-13-211	Evidence insufficient to prove purposeful transfer and intent to infect; conflicting testimony undermines State’s proof	Affirmed — jury could find Wright purposely spit on Mirus, threatened infection, and acted with the requisite intent and circumstances manifesting extreme indifference
Sufficiency to convict for first-degree terroristic threatening (threat to kill/seriously injure to terrorize)	Wright threatened to kill Mirus and his family while acting violently, demonstrating purpose to terrorize	Evidence insufficient to show purpose to terrorize or credible threat given conflicting testimony	Affirmed — Mirus’s testimony about threats and surrounding violent conduct supported conviction and reasonable fear for family safety

Satterfield v. State, 448 S.W.3d 211 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence; view evidence in light most favorable to the State)