*1 315 v. STATE of Arkansas Michael D. FITZHUGH CR 87-78 638 S.W.2d Court Arkansas
Supreme October delivered Opinion *2 for
Denny Hyslip, appellant. Clark, Gen., Steve Asst. Att’y J. Brent Att’y by: Standridge, Gen., for appellee. Chief Justice. The Michael D. Holt, Jr.,
Jаck appellant, Fitzhugh, was convicted of first murder and sentenced to degree life On the trial did imprisonment. Fitzhugh argues judge appeal, not use his discretion in sentencing, and exhibits photographs admitted, improperly a directed verdict should have been granted. We find these arguments are mеritless and affirm. 29, 1985,
On September Fitzhugh Ruby Dugan, hit with whom he was in the living, head with a claw hammer stabbed her four times in the in her death. He her resulting chest wrapped sheеt, in a her bags dragged beneath her to placed plastic body, his bedroom floor and covered her with a blanket. He cross her forehеad and a door. Bible at the The police discovered the a few later. was days Fitzhugh up picked trial, taken to the station where he jury сonfessed. After a he was convicted of degree first murder and sentenced to life from which he imprisonment, now appeals.
Fitzhugh first the trial court use argues failed to discretion him to sentencing life the trial court imprisonment, claiming discretion, followed the verdict which in jury’s exercising without turn, voids the sentence. cites federal for his authority argument that the trial court’s to voids failure exercise discretion the sentence. Our courts do nоt sentence under the federal rules. It is clear from the record that the trial court with Ark. complied Stat. Ann. 41-802 1977) and Ark. R. Crim. P. 36.4 his (Repl. § sentencing procedures. Fitzhugh that the trial
Fitzhugh next contends the trial court erred in admitting two into evidence inasmuch as photographs the photo graphs’ probative outweighed danger value was the of unfair by prejudice. We disagree. The admissibility of is photographs within the sound discretion of the court and will trial not bе reversed absent an State, abuse of that discretion. Watson v. 290 484, Ark. 720 S.W.2d (1986); State, 310 Fairchild v. 284 Ark. 289, 681 State, S.W.2d 380 (1984); Hayes 211, v. 278 Ark.
S.W.2d 662 (1983). The fact that
be inflam
photographs may
matоry is not alone sufficient reason to exclude them. Inflam
matory
are admissible
photographs
in the discretion of the trial
court if they tend to shed light on
or enable a
any issue
witness to
better describe the objects
or the
portrayed
better
understand the
or to
testimony,
corroborate
Watson v.
testimony.
State,
State,
supra; Berry
223,
v.
290 Ark.
In instance, this the were photographs of the victim before and after the sheet had been frоm her and unwrapped were used by a witness to describe the help crime scene. The black plastic bag in one of the photographs was sent to the crime lab to be examined for fingerprints. The latent examiner fingerprint testified that a on fingerprint palm bag the were print Fitzhugh’s. said Fitzhugh bag he the under the victim and her wrapped in the sheet after he killed her. The sheet was in the pictured exhibit. The further Fitz photographs support hugh’s stаtement that he left the on victim the floor beside his bed. times in the chest. stated the victim four
Fitzhugh that he stabbed Malak, Dr. wounded. One of the the chest was shоws photographs examiner, in wounds the chest the state medical testified four stab sum, death. In the contributing found and cause of were were a tо understand the assisting the jury were useful photographs not so certainly scene the crime testimony depicting court not the The trial did as to inflammatory prejudice jury. in evidence. admitting its discretion in the pictures abuse trial court erred argument third is that the Fitzhugh’s of grant directed verdict on the insufficient refusing ground challenge A directed verdict is a to the evidence. motion for a State, Glick 275 Ark. the evidence. v. sufficiency S.W.2d 14 (1982). murder,
Fitzhugh got confessеd to the that he a claw stating closet, hammer out of a hit the victim in the forehead with the hammer, and out (he stabbed her four times in the chest pointed her). on his chest where he stabbed her in wrapping He admitted sheet, the belts placing under her around bags body, tying plastic bedroom, the his her оn the floor body, her into dragging placing bed, blanket, then covering next his her with a placing cross on her and a Bible door. further forehead the hе the cleaned the blood off floor and threw cloths in explained the shower tub did not dogs because he want the to smell the blood. The next made the same day, substantially *4 statement, addition, in that he the knife clean and noting wiped the hammer and bag dumpster in a threw it in the put plastic by Pizza Hut. He he gathered further stated sheets and other items scene, from the them in a double and it in the put bag bushes the by railroad tracks.
Ark. Stat. Ann. 43-2115
“A
1977)
(Repl.
providеs:
§
defendant,
court,
confession of a
unless made in
will not
open
conviction,
warrant a
unless
with other
that
accompanied
proof
confession,
such an offense
An
along
was committed.”
accused’s
evidence,
with other
is sufficient to
conviction. Stone v.
support
State,
204,
State,
290 Ark.
Here, the injuries victim suffered to her head and chest. The medical examiner on an the performed autopsy testified that at least three blows were delivered to the head aby rounded object, such as heavy the head of a hammer. Four stab wounds were found in the center of chest. cause of part the The death was the head and the injuries stab wounds. The found bag the sheets containing the where said it by he placеd the railroad tracks. Fitzhugh’s fingerprints found on black found plastic bag evidence, the the scene. by body at This combined with confessions, sufficiently the convic supports Therefore, tion. the trial court denied the motion for a correctly directed verdict.
Fitzhugh argues the
are not crediblе due to
confessions
his mental incompetence and the
of
different versions
his state
(he
ment
also denied any
crime).
involvement
with the
The
hаs the
duty
resolve
of
questions
credibility
confessions.
State,
Kendal v.
173,
292 Ark.
(1987).
For his argument last on appeal, Fitzhugh contends the trial court erred in allowing the of admission State’s Exhibits 12- 17, which are state hospital records Since psychiatric reports. Fitzhugh failed to exhibits, abstract these we will not consider thе issue. Ark. Ct. R. Sup. 9.
As required 11(f), our Rule we have reviewed all abstracted rulings adverse as well as the raised points on appeal found no error.
Affirmed. J.,
Purtlе, concurs. Justice, Purtle, I. John concurring. concur the result I but do not join the opinion because it reads like a brief on behalf *5 the state. correctly notes court must exercise discretion in sentencing defendant consecutive or concurrent terms. See Ark. Stat. Ann. 41-903 § However, 1977). this (Repl. argument is not to this applicable case because Fitzhugh received one life sentence. only The trial court’s of Fitzhugh’s sentence pronouncement cannot be characterized as merely mimicking the verdict. jury After the jury returned a verdict and guilty sentenced life, formal was schеduled for the sentencing following At day. time, that the trial verdict, stated he but judge accepted gave then both the defense and the be state an opportunity remarks, heard. After their the trial court sentence. pronounced Nothing could be more fair to the defendant.