Title: Watson v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Michael WATSON v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-204                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 18, 1997


1.   Appeal & error -- appellant must present record showing proffer of
     requested instruction -- issue not considered on appeal. -- An appellant
     who seeks reversal based on the failure to instruct the jury
     as requested by the appellant must present a record showing a
     proffer of the requested instruction; where the record in
     appellant's case did not contain a proffer of an instruction
     on the lesser-included offense of second-degree battery, the
     supreme court affirmed on the point without further
     consideration.

2.   Appeal & error -- failure to abstract critical document precludes appellate
     consideration of issues concerning it. -- It is an appellant's or, in
     this case, a cross-appellant's duty to present a record to the
     appellate court sufficient to permit review of the error it
     asserts; failure to abstract a critical document precludes the
     appellate court from considering issues concerning it.


     Appeal from Clark Circuit Court; W.H. "Dub" Arnold, Judge;
affirmed on appeal; affirmed on cross-appeal.
     Alvin Schay, for appellant/cross-appellee.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Asst.
Att'y Gen., for appellee/cross-appellant.
     David Newbern, Justice.
     Michael Watson was convicted of two counts of first-degree
battery, one count of felon in possession of a firearm, and one
count of terroristic threatening.  The evidence showed that Mr.
Watson shot and injured Kenyon Coleman and Jonathan Young and
pointed his pistol at Tremmel Prudhomme outside a fraternity house
in Arkadelphia while a party was in progress.  He was sentenced to
102 years in prison.  Mr. Watson's sole point of appeal relates to
the battery convictions.  He contends the Trial Court erred in
refusing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offense of
second-degree battery.  We affirm because no such instructions were
proffered to the Trial Court.  
     On numerous occasions, most recently in Dixon v. State, 327
Ark. 105, 937 S.W.2d 642 (1997), and Wallace v. State, 326 Ark.
376, 931 S.W.2d 113 (1996), we have restated the rule that an
appellant who seeks reversal based on the failure to instruct the
jury as requested by the appellant must present a record showing a
proffer of the requested instruction.  The record in this case does
not contain any such proffer, thus we must affirm on the point
without further consideration.
     The State has cross-appealed from a directed verdict or
dismissal granted in Mr. Watson's favor with respect to a charge of
terroristic act.  Ark. Code Ann.  5-13-310(a)(2) (Repl. 1993). 
The statute prohibits shooting "with the purpose to cause injury to
persons or property at an occupiable structure."  As abstracted by
Mr. Watson, it appears that the Trial Court granted a directed
verdict motion but in the course of doing so said the charge was
"dismissed" because Mr. Watson was shooting at a person rather than
at an occupiable structure.  
     Whether the charge was dismissed due to a technical defect or
resulted in no conviction because of insufficiency of the evidence,
it is apparent that the language of the allegation is significant. 
We have no idea what the allegation was because neither Mr. Watson
nor the State has abstracted an information or amended information
charging Mr. Watson with a terroristic act.  It is an appellant's,
in this case a cross-appellant's, duty to present a record to the
Court sufficient to permit review of the error it asserts.  Failure
to abstract a critical document precludes this Court from
considering issues concerning it.  Jackson v. State, 316 Ark. 509,
872 S.W.2d 400 (1994); Porchia v. State, 306 Ark. 443,