Case Title: Jones v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: cr96-24-7

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1996-09-23T00:00:00Z

Document:
John JONES, Jr. v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-247                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 23, 1996


1.   Motions -- when motion for directed verdict must be made --
     issue waived on appeal. -- In order to preserve the issue of
     insufficient evidence for appeal, motions for a directed
     verdict must be made at the close of the State's case-in-chief
     and again at the close of all the evidence; where appellant
     never made a motion for a directed verdict at any point during
     the trial, the issue was waived on appeal.

2.   Appeal & error -- relief requested at trial granted -- no
     basis for appeal. -- Appellant's contention that it was error
     for the State to use a gun similar to the weapon used during
     the robbery as demonstrative evidence in the trial was not
     reached on appeal where the trial court held that the gun
     could not be used by the State as demonstrative evidence and
     was never used during the trial; appellant received the relief
     requested; accordingly, he had no basis for appeal.  

3.   Evidence -- error predicated on ruling admitting evidence must
     be based on timely objection -- when objection is timely. --
     Where at no time during the trial testimony of any of the
     witnesses did appellant object to the admissibility of the
     identification evidence, but instead waited until the close of
     the State's case-in-chief to object, the trial court's finding 
     that the objection was not timely and that, in any event, the
     "lineup" was not suggestive was not error; error may not be
     predicated upon a ruling admitting evidence unless there is a
     timely objection; to be timely, an objection must be
     contemporaneous, or nearly so, with the alleged error.  

4.   Witnesses -- credibility of determined by jury -- jury free to
     believe State's witnesses. -- Appellant's assertion that the
     jury improperly ignored his exculpatory evidence was without
     merit; it is the sole province of the jury to judge the
     credibility of the witnesses; the jury was free to believe the
     testimony of the State's witnesses and to discount that of
     appellant and his witness.

5.   Evidence -- proponent bears burden of proving unavailability
     of witnesses -- good faith effort must be made. -- The
     proponent bears the burden of proving the unavailability of
     the declarant by showing that he or she made a "good-faith
     effort" to procure the attendance of the missing declarant by
     use of process, such as a subpoena, or by other reasonable
     methods; mere inquires about the declarant's whereabouts may
     not be sufficient.  

6.   Evidence -- trial court found appellant failed in good faith
     to use reasonable efforts to locate witness -- no abuse of
     discretion found. --  The trial court's finding that appellant
     failed in good faith to use "reasonable efforts" to locate the
     witness was not an abuse of discretion when appellant stated
     only that he had spoken to some people about the witness and
     admitted that the witness possibly could have been located;
     because appellant failed to show that the declarant was
     unavailable under Ark. R. Evid. 804(a)(5), the witness's
     testimony was properly excluded.

7.   Evidence -- when evidentiary error is considered harmless. --
     Evidentiary error is harmless if the same or similar evidence
     is otherwise introduced at trial. 

8.   Appeal & error -- argument raised for first time on appeal --
     court will not address it. -- Where appellant did not make an
     argument to the trial court, the appellate court did not reach
     it; the court will not consider an argument for the first time
     on appeal.  


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; John W. Langston, Judge;
affirmed.
     Christopher C. Mercer, Jr., for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Sandy Moll, Asst. Att'y Gen.,
for appellee.

     Andree Layton Roaf, Justice.
     Appellant John Jones, Jr., was sentenced to thirty-six years
in prison for aggravated robbery and theft.  Jones raises several
grounds for appeal, including sufficiency of the evidence and four
evidentiary issues.  We find no error and affirm.
     On the evening of January 26, 1995, Carol Reed was robbed at
gunpoint in a Kroger parking lot in Little Rock.  The assailant
held a gun to Reed's face, took her purse containing approximately
$200, and fled the scene in a white Chevrolet Blazer. Reed was able
to give the police a description of her assailant and the clothing
he wore.  
     Jeana Stout, a customer who was sitting in her car
approximately 10-20 feet from the scene of the crime, witnessed the
robbery and was able to provide the police with a description of
the assailant.  Roy Biles, the store manager, heard Reed's screams
and came outside the store and into the parking lot just as the 
assailant was taking Reed's purse.   Biles chased the assailant
through the parking lot and saw him enter the white Blazer; he was
able to give the police the license plate number of the vehicle.  
     A few minutes after the robbery, the police located a white
Chevy Blazer with the license tag described by Biles parked outside
a house on Grant Street.  The police took Ms. Reed and Ms. Stout to
the Grant Street residence to see if they could identify the
assailant.  Approximately ten to twenty people were gathered in 
the front yard of the residence at the time the police arrived with
the two witnesses.  Both Reed and Stout positively identified Jones
as the assailant from the group gathered outside the house.  The
police arrested Jones and found approximately $457.00 in his
pockets.
     Jones' first argument on appeal is that there was insufficient
evidence to support his conviction of aggravated robbery and theft. 
This court has said on numerous occasions that in order to preserve
this issue for appeal, motions for a directed verdict must be made
at the close of the State's case-in-chief and again at the close of
all the evidence.  Clay v. State, 318 Ark. 550,