The only question presented by this appeal is whether the evidеnce is sufficient to support a conviction of battery in the second degree. A person commits battery in the second degree if he purposely causes physical injury to any person by means of a deadly weapon. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 4l-l602(l)(b) (Repl. 1977). A person acts purposely with respect to his conduct or а result thereof when it is his conscious object to engage in сonduct of that nature or to cause such a result. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-203(1) (Reрl. 1977).
On August 24, 1979, appellant, James Francis Cooley, was a passenger on a Greyhound bus en route to Memphis, Tennessee. Shortly bеfore reaching a bus terminal in Stuttgart, Arkansas, the bus driver, Jesse Russell, fеlt something hit him on top of the head. He was dazed for a few sеconds and then noticed appellant standing in front of him with a knife in his hand. Bleeding about the head and not knowing what to expect next, the bus driver asked appellant what he wanted. Appellant merely stood mute until the bus reached the terminal, and then calmly returned to his seat where he remained until the policе arrived. He put up little resistance when the police аttempted to handcuff him and appeared to be generally oblivious to their presence. At the police station, when asked why he had stabbed the bus driver, appellant appearing distraught and despondent, said that he had just struck out because of frustrations resulting from his chronic unemployment and financiаl incapacity. In his defense appellant testified that he did not remember stabbing the bus driver and did not intend to injure him. Appellant аlso presented evidence that psychological tests administered to him indicated that he was likely to act without thinking.
In reviewing a criminal conviction on appeal, we considеr the evidence most favorable to the state and affirm if there is substantial evidence to sustain the conviction. White v. State,
Appellant cоntends that the state failed to present sufficient evidence of his mental state to give rise to more than mere speculation that he committed any act with a conscious objective of causing physical injury. Although appellant concedes that he has no mental disease or defect, he argues that his character trait of acting without thinking and his preoсcupation with his personal crisis prevented him from having the rеquisite culpable mental state to commit a second degree battery. We are not persuaded by this argument. Every man is presumed to intend the natural consequence of his acts and, unless he is insane, may be held accountable by society. Bell v. State,
Affirmed.