Case Title: Green v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR97-59

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-11-06T00:00:00Z

Document:
Willie Leon GREEN v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-59                                           ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered November 6, 1997


1.   Motions -- directed verdict -- challenge to sufficiency of evidence --
     substantial evidence defined. -- Motions for directed verdict are
     treated as challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence; when
     a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence
     convicting him, the evidence is viewed in the light most
     favorable to the State; evidence is sufficient to support a
     conviction if the trier of fact can reach a conclusion without
     having to resort to speculation or conjecture; substantial
     evidence is that which is forceful enough to compel reasonable
     minds to reach a conclusion one way or the other; only
     evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. 

2.   Criminal law -- intent or state of mind -- usually inferred. -- A
     criminal defendant's intent or state of mind is rarely capable
     of proof by direct evidence and must usually be inferred from
     the circumstances of the crime.

3.   Criminal law -- premeditation and deliberation discussed. -- The
     necessary premeditation is not required to exist for a
     particular length of time and may be formed in an instant;
     premeditation and deliberation may be inferred from the type
     and character of the weapon used, the manner in which the
     weapon was used, the nature, extent, and location of the
     wounds inflicted, and the conduct of the accused.

4.   Evidence -- attempted capital murder -- appellant's guilt supported by
     substantial evidence. -- Where there was evidence that police
     officers announced their presence outside appellantþs
     apartment before breaking down the door; where the first two
     men through, both detectives, were shot; where the fatally
     wounded detective was shot with a bullet from appellantþs
     revolver, and the jury could have inferred that the other
     detective was shot with a bullet from the same weapon; where
     the revolver recovered at the scene contained five spent
     hulls; and where the surviving wounded detective was also shot
     in the head while wearing his police gear and after an
     identification announcement, the supreme court, viewing the
     evidence in the light most favorable to the State, concluded
     that this constituted substantial evidence that appellant was
     guilty of attempted capital murder with regard to the
     surviving wounded detective.

5.   Appeal & error -- arguments raised for first time on appeal not addressed.
     -- The supreme court did not consider appellant's  two
     arguments regarding lack of substantial evidence for his
     first-degree murder conviction because neither was raised as
     part of appellant's directed-verdict motion; the supreme court
     does not address arguments, even constitutional arguments,
     that are raised for the first time on appeal.

6.   Trial -- insinuation of perjury is impermissible comment on evidence by
     trial court. -- An insinuation by the trial court that a witness
     is committing perjury is an impermissible comment on the
     evidence.

7.   Appeal & error -- plain-error review not mandated by Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-
     3(h) -- objection required -- exceptions. -- The language of Ark.
     Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(h) does not mandate plain-error review; an
     objection by counsel is required to preserve an issue for
     review under Rule 4-3(h); the acknowledged exceptions to this
     requirement are (1) death penalty cases involving an error in
     a matter essential to the jury's consideration of the death
     penalty itself; (2) cases where the trial judge made an error
     of which the appellant had no knowledge; (3) cases where the
     trial judge neglected his or her duty to intervene; and (4)
     cases involving evidentiary errors that affected the
     appellant's substantial rights.

8.   Appeal & error -- plain-error review not authorized by Ark. R. Evid.
     103(d). -- The language of Ark. R. Evid. 103(d) does not
     authorize plain-error review.

9.   Jury -- Batson challenge -- procedure. -- The procedure for a
     challenge under Batson v. Kentucky,