Williе Ray Harris, the appellant, admitted stabbing and killing Annie Mae Marshall McDowell on November 15,1991. He was charged with first degree murder as an habitual offender, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He contends the Trial Court erred in failing to grant a directed verdict as there was no evidence that he acted with the purpose оf causing Ms. McDowell’s death. He also argues enlargements of photographs showing the wounds he inflicted were unfairly prejudicial and should not have been admitted into evidence. We hold that the nature of the weapon used, and the manner of its use, were such that the evidence of Harris’s purpose was sufficient. We also hold that the Trial Court did not abuse its discretion in holding the photographs were not, in the words of Ark. R. Evid. 403, unfairly prejudicial. The conviction is affirmed.
The events leading up to the murder were detailed in Harris’s statement. Ms. McDowell arrived at Harris’s apartment about 4:.30 a.m. asking if she could stay for a time. Harris agreed, and she got into bed with him. Later that morning, at 7:00 or 8:00 a.m., Harris picked up his payroll check and purchased an alcoholic beverage which he and McDowell shared. Sometime around noon Harris gave McDowell $40, and she purchased three rocks of crack cocaine. Thеy shared the drugs and had sexual intercourse.
McDowell asked Harris for more money. When he refused to provide mоre money she flew into a rage, grabbed a butcher knife which was lying near the bed and cut Harris’s hands. Harris took the knife frоm her, cut her hair, and stabbed her a couple of times. Harris said he was only trying to make McDowell get herself under control and that he later left the bed and laid the knife down. While he was attempting to get dressed McDowell retrieved the knife, and they resumed fighting on the bed. During the struggle Harris again regained control of the knife and proceeded to stab McDowell 17 times, causing her death.
In a telephone conversation with 911 officials Harris confessed to having killed the victim, and this statement was recorded and played for the jury. Harris also confessed to the policе when they arrived and related the foregoing in a taped confession.
1. Sufficiency of the evidence
When the sufficiency of the evidencе is challenged, we affirm if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Abdullah v. State,
The Trial Court found Harris guilty of first degree murder for having killed McDowell “with a purpose of cаusing death.” See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-102(a)(2) (Supp. 1991). He argues the prosecution failed to produce any evidence thаt he acted purposefully. The Trial Court found the extent of the victim’s wounds was sufficient to support the conclusion that he acted purposefully. As intent cannot be proven by direct evidence, it may be inferred from the typе weapon used, the manner of its use, and the nature, extent, and location of the wounds. Walker v. State,
2. Photographs
Harris next argues that the Court erred by allowing the use of enlarged рhotographs. Neither the original photographs nor the enlargements appear in Harris’s abstract. In its brief, filed August 4, 1993, the State argued we could not reach the issue due to the failure to abstract. On August 13, 1993, Harris moved to supplement the record with copies of the enlarged photographs or alternatively to be relieved of the abstracting requirement as impracticable or an undue economic burden on the public defender’s office representing Harris. Such a motion is permitted in Rule 4-2(a)(6). We granted the motion to supplement the record, and сopies of the photographic enlargements were filed. In view of the obvious expense involved, we shоuld have recognized the impracticability of requiring the large color photographs be reproducеd in sufficient number to accompany each of the required copies of Harris’s brief. Under these circumstanсes we will consider the photographs we now find in the record as we did in Burkhart v. State,
The Trial Court found the photogrаphs were neither cumulative, duplicative, nor unnecessary. Berry v. State,
In Mitchell v. State,
3. Review of other errors
The record has been examined in accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(h), and the objections have all been abstracted and certified by the State. We have found no other rulings adverse to Harris which constituted prejudicial error.
Affirmed.