Quintrеll RICHARDSON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
No. CR-13-331.
Court of Appeals of Arkansas.
Dec. 3, 2014.
2014 Ark. App. 679
This court has noted that, although it is within a trial court‘s discretion to grant a new trial when a verdict is rendered against a defendant by which his substantial rights have been prejudiced, there must be a showing of the prejudice suffered and that the defendant did not receive a fair and impartial trial. Dail v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 184, 2013 WL 1007223. Here, the circuit court made factual findings that the jury was not distracted or influenced by the prosecuting attorney‘s actions, and those findings were supported by the evidence introduced at the new-trial hearing. Cody failed to point to a single juror whose decision was swayed by the prosecutor‘s conduct. In the absence of a demonstration of prejudice, we cannot say that the circuit court abused its discretion in denying Cody‘s motion for new trial.
Affirmed.
PITTMAN and GLOVER, JJ., agree.
I. The Directed Verdict
We first address Richardson‘s argument that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion for a directed verdict during trial. Arkansas law treats a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Blockman v. State, 69 Ark.App. 192, 11 S.W.3d 562 (2000). A challenge to the sufficiency of thе evidence is only reversed if there is no substantial evidence to support the verdict. Id. Circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial evidence to suрport a conviction. Brunson v. State, 368 Ark. 313, 245 S.W.3d 132 (2006). Guilt can be established without direct evidence and evidence of guilt is not less because it is circumstantial. Id. Circumstantial evidencе is substantial when it excludes every other reasonable hypothesis than that of guilt. Id. We will only disturb the jury‘s determination if evidence did not meet the required standards so that the jury had to speculate and conjecture to reach its verdict. Id.
Richardson was charged with participating in aggravated robberies at two convenience stores on 18 October 2011. At trial, the State presented testimony from three police officers; one was Sergeant Blake Lively, who recognizеd Richardson‘s car and initiated an investigatory stop near, and only a few minutes after, a second robbery had occurred. Lively testified that, as he approached the car, he observed the back-seat passenger taking off a black jacket, and the front-seat passenger had a white t-shirt in his lap аnd was not otherwise wearing a shirt. The sergeant also testified that the two men traveling with Richardson—Dameon Davis and Kennon Daniels—gave him false names and that “each of the individuals in
Kimberly Eden, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att‘y Gen., by: Jake H. Jones, Ass‘t Att‘y Gen., for appellee.
BRANDON J. HARRISON, Judge.
Quintrell Richardson was charged and convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery (Cherrytree Gas Station and Dodge Store) and sentenced to two ten-year sentences by a Mississippi County Circuit Court. The issues here are whether the сircuit court should have granted Richardson‘s motion to suppress and his motion
Detective Chris Lassley, who worked for the Blytheville Police Department on October 18, investigated the robbery and “immediately noticed money stuffed up under the front passenger side seаt just hanging out into the floor board” in a manner that looked like “someone had just shoved it under there trying to hide it.”
Sergeant James Harris testified that he recovered money from the floorboards of Richardson‘s car and from all three men who were inside the car. Sergeant Harris said, among other things related to the money, that the total amount recovered was $563, nearly the same amount taken from the convenience stores, and that some of the bills were papеr-clipped together. The sergeant also testified, while watching a store-surveillance video, that the black “Dickies” coat found with the backseat passenger closely resembled what the robber had worn.
Three store clerks testified too: Harmanjeet Khatrao, Kelly Khatrao, and Elishia Malone. The clerks collectively testified that a dark-skinned, male robber brandished a handgun, demanded money, took money, and wore black clothes with a white rag covеring part of his face. The witnesses testified about the amount of money taken and its denominations, and said that some of the money was paper-clipрed together when stolen.
In his motions for directed verdict, Richardson argued that the State had presented no proof that he participated in the rоbberies. Here, he again argues that the State‘s evidence was “circumstantial at best” and does not provide substantial evidence to support a guilty verdict.
We disagree and hold that substantial evidence supports Richardson‘s convictions. It is true that no witness directly identified Richardson as being the actual robber. But as the State argues, a person is criminally liable for the conduct of another person when he is the accomplice of another persоn in the commission of an offense.
Richardson‘s car was stopped driving away from a robbery soon after it had occurred, and he had two passengers with him. In the car, police found approximately the same amount of money that had been stolen, and in the small denominations that the store clerks mentioned at trial. There was also testimony that some of the money looked as if it had been hastily hidden, that some of it was paper-clipped together as at least one store clerk described, and the clothing found in the car matched the description of what the robber wore as seen on a store-surveillance video.
We acknowledge that Richardson put on some proоf of an alibi, or a challenge to the State‘s timeline, through his brother‘s testimony. But the jury was permitted to weigh and credit all the testimony and other evidence as it rеached its verdict that Richardson was guilty of committing
II. The Motion to Suppress
Richardson‘s challenge to the circuit court‘s denial of his motion to suppress is decided by the companion case Davis v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 658, 430 S.W.3d 190, where this court addressed the same legal issue that Richardson‘s motion to suppress raises. Richardson argues that the circuit court should have suppressed adverse evidencе because Sergeant Lively acted unlawfully when he stopped Richardson‘s car on 18 October 2011. In Davis, supra, passenger Dameon Davis argued the same legal point from the same factual record now before us. Because Davis addressed the same legal issue on the same factual record, we are bound by this court‘s prior decision that the police did not unlawfully stop Richardson‘s car. We therefore affirm the circuit court‘s denial of Richardson‘s motion to suppress in this case.
Affirmed.
WALMSLEY and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.