Case Title: Stephens v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR96-403

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-05-19T00:00:00Z

Document:
Melissa STEPHENS v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-403                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                 Opinion delivered May 19, 1997


1.   Statutes -- interpretation of -- both intent of legislature
     and common sense used. -- When interpreting statutes, the
     supreme court adheres to the basic rule of statutory
     construction that gives effect to the intent of the
     legislature, making use of common sense. 

2.   Statutes -- appellant's actions clearly within meaning of
     false reports statute -- trial court correctly denied
     appellant's motion for directed verdict. -- Where appellant's
     statements to police were the sole links that connected the
     man arrested to the disappearance of the money; where
     appellant told the story of the alleged theft to both the
     victim and to the police and also brought the purported thief
     to the police station; and where she again reported to police
     that he took the money, appellant's false statements, made
     under these circumstances, were prohibited by both the spirit
     and the letter of the law regarding the filing of a false
     report; the trial court correctly denied her motion for
     directed verdict; Ark. Code Ann.  5-54-122(a)'s reference to
     "filing a report" very clearly does not require that there be
     a formal written document but specifically includes in the
     definition "any communication, either written or oral, sworn
     or unsworn." 
     

     Appeal from Benton Circuit Court; Tom J. Keith, Judge;
affirmed.
     Office of the Public Defender, by:  Theresa S. Nazario, for
appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  J. Brent Standridge, Asst.
Att'y Gen., for appellee.

     Ray Thornton, Justice.
     Appellant Melissa Stephens was convicted of filing a false
report with a law enforcement agency.  She challenges her
conviction, raising the question whether our criminal statute
prohibiting the filing of a false report with a law enforcement
agency is violated when the false statement is made by a person
other than the one who actually called the police to report the
crime.  She asserts that the trial court erred when it denied her
motion for directed verdict, in which she argued that the State had
failed to prove that she "filed" the report.  We find no error and
affirm.
     The facts surrounding her conviction are as follows. 
Appellant's boyfriend, Ron Mettetal, told her to ask her friend
Sherry Taylor if she had given John Richards permission to take
$600.00 from cash savings, which Sherry was holding in her
apartment to buy equipment to treat her sick child.  Appellant gave
Sherry a detailed but fictitious account of how Richards told her
that Sherry had given him permission to go into her apartment and
take the money, that he said that he knew where the money was, and
later that he asked appellant to go to Florida with him and fanned
out six one-hundred dollar bills from his pocket.  
     Sherry and her boyfriend, Curt Ayers, went to the apartment
and discovered that the amount of $600.00 was indeed missing.  They
called the police, and appellant came to Sherry's apartment and
repeated the fictitious account to Officer Michael LeBlanc.
     Later that evening appellant arranged a meeting with Richards
at a parking lot, where Mettetal and Ayers forced him into the car.
Appellant drove them to the police station, where they delivered
Richards into the custody of the police.  At the police station,
appellant gave a statement to Detective Debra Crews maintaining
that Richards had told her that Sherry gave him permission to
borrow $600.00, and that the next day Richards had shown her six
one-hundred dollar bills.
     Richards, who was interviewed by another officer at the
station, denied taking the money, but said that he would pay it
back to prevent any hard feelings.  He was arrested and charged,
but was released pending trial.  
     Shortly before Richards's trial date, the State became
concerned about discrepancies in the stories, and interviewed
appellant again on a prosecutor's subpoena.  Upon being confronted
with these discrepancies, appellant admitted that her earlier
account was false.  She said that she told Sherry that Richards had
taken the $600 because Mettetal, who was listening to the phone
conversation, had suggested that she say that.  She admitted that
there was no meeting with Richards where he fanned out six one-
hundred dollar bills.
     Arkansas Code Annotated  5-54-122 (Repl. 1993) provides:
(a) For the purpose of this section, "report"
means any communication, either written or
oral, sworn or unsworn.
(b) A person commits the offense of filing a
false report if he files a report with any law
enforcement agency or prosecuting attorney's
office of any alleged criminal wrongdoing on
the part of another knowing that such report
is false.
  (c)(1) Filing a false report is a Class D
felony if:
     (A) The crime is a capital offense, Class
Y felony, Class A felony, or Class B felony.
     (B) The agency or the office to whom the
report is made has expended in excess of five
hundred dollars ($500) in order to investigate
said report, including the costs of labor; or
     (C) Physical injury results to any person
as a result of the false report; or
     (D) The false report is made in an effort
by the person filing said false report to
conceal his own criminal activity; or
     (E) The false report results in another
person being arrested.
(2) Otherwise, filing a false report is a
Class A misdemeanor.
Under the facts of this case, making a false report would be a
Class D felony because the amount of the alleged theft, $600, would
constitute a Class B felony; the expenses incurred by the law
enforcement offices exceeded $500; and the false report resulted in
the arrest of another person.
     The thrust of appellant's argument is that the State did not
prove that she "filed" a false report within the meaning of the
statute because it was Sherry, and not appellant, who made the call
to the police about the theft.  When interpreting statutes, this
court adheres to the basic rule of statutory construction that
gives effect to the intent of the legislature, making use of common
sense.  Sanders v. State, 310 Ark. 630, 839 S.W.2d 518 (1992).
     Here, appellant's statements to police were the sole links
that connected Richards to the disappearance of the money. 
Further, not only did appellant contact Sherry and tell her
Richards had the money and then repeat the story to Officer LeBlanc
when he went to Sherry's apartment to investigate the incident; but
she also brought Richards to the police station, where she again
reported to police that he took the money.  While the statute
speaks of "filing a report," it very clearly does not require that
this be a formal written document, but specifically includes in the
definition "any communication, either written or oral, sworn or
unsworn."  Ark. Code Ann.  5-54-122(a).
     We conclude that appellant's false statements, made under
these circumstances, were prohibited by both the spirit and the
letter of the law regarding the filing of a false report.  The
trial court correctly denied her motion for directed verdict.
     Affirmed.