Title: Goff v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Belynda Faye GOFF v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-135                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 18, 1997


1.   Evidence -- sufficiency of -- when sufficient to support
     conviction. -- Evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, is
     sufficient to support a conviction if the evidence is forceful
     enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion one
     way or the other; in determining the sufficiency of the
     evidence, the supreme court need only ascertain that evidence
     most favorable to the appellee; it is permissible to consider
     only that testimony which supports the verdict of guilty.

2.   Evidence -- defendant's statements explaining suspicious
     circumstances admissible as proof of guilt. -- A defendant's
     false and improbable statements explaining suspicious
     circumstances are admissible as proof of guilt.

3.   Motions -- evidence more than sufficient to establish
     appellant murdered her husband -- directed-verdict motion
     properly denied. -- Appellant's improbable statements
     concerning the events surrounding her husband's death, when
     combined with evidence that clearly indicated: that her
     husband had been beaten to death while present in the couple's
     apartment; that his attacker had not left the apartment, yet
     only appellant and her three-year-old son were in the
     apartment when the body was found; that indicated that someone
     in the apartment had attempted to "clean up" the crime scene;
     that appellant made the emergency call before the time she
     claimed she actually woke up; that when the paramedics arrived
     at the scene, appellant appeared calm and was not disheveled
     or groggy as if she had just woken up; and that there existed
     both an opportunity and a motive for appellant to kill her
     husband, was more than sufficient to establish that appellant
     murdered her husband; the trial court properly denied
     appellant's motion for a directed verdict.

4.   Witnesses -- expert witnesses -- when testimony can include
     hearsay. -- An expert can render an opinion based on facts and
     data otherwise inadmissible, including hearsay, as long as
     they are of a type reasonably relied upon by experts in the
     field; when an expert's testimony is based on hearsay, the
     lack of personal knowledge on the part of the expert does not
     mandate the exclusion of the testimony, but instead it
     presents a jury question as to the weight of the testimony.

5.   Witnesses -- witness qualified without objection as DNA expert
     -- no abuse of discretion found in trial court's allowing
     testimony. -- Where an expert witness testified that not only
     did she supervise the technician who prepared the DNA report,
     but she also independently reviewed his test results; where
     she related that under standard operating protocol, all
     testing is done under her supervision and she must approve all
     results and conclusions that are reached; where the witness
     was qualified without objection as an expert in the field of
     DNA testing; and where she testified that it was "quite
     common" for DNA experts to examine case files and protocols
     and decide whether the DNA testing in a particular case is
     accurate and that she did so in this case, the supreme court
     found no abuse of discretion in allowing the testimony; the
     supreme court does not reverse the trial judge's ruling on a
     hearsay question absent an abuse of discretion.

6.   Evidence -- admission of photographs within sound discretion
     of trial court -- circumstances under which even gruesome
     photos are admissible. -- The admission and relevancy of
     photographs is a matter within the sound discretion of the
     trial court, and the mere fact that photos are inflammatory
     will not render them inadmissible; even the most gruesome
     photos may be admissible if they tend to shed some light on
     any issue, to corroborate testimony, or if they are essential
     in proving a necessary element of a case, are useful to enable
     a witness to testify more effectively, or enable the jury to
     better understand testimony; other acceptable purposes are to
     show the condition of the victims' bodies, the probable type
     or location of the injuries, and the position in which the
     bodies were discovered. 
7.   Evidence -- disputed photos aided understanding of nature and
     extent of victim's injuries -- trial court did not abuse
     discretion in allowing into evidence. -- The disputed photos
     revealed the position of the victim's body when found, aided
     in the explanation he had been attacked while inside the
     apartment, served as aids in explaining to the jury the nature
     and extent of the victim's injuries, supported the doctor's
     opinion that the weapon used had a circular or oval hard
     surface like the hammer found in the apartment, and, in
     depicting the nature and extent of the victim's wounds, helped
     the prosecution prove appellant had acted purposefully -- a
     required element in proving first-degree murder, the crime
     with which she was charged; because the six photographs were
     shown to have enabled the medical witness to testify more
     effectively and to enable the jury to understand just how and
     where the victim was killed, the trial court did not abuse its
     discretion in allowing them into evidence.

8.   Trial -- jury in deliberation must be brought into open court
     before any information may be given to it -- noncompliance
     gives rise to presumption of prejudice. --    Ark. Code Ann.
      16-89-125(e) (1987) mandates that a jury which is in
     deliberation must be brought into open court before any
     information may be given to it; noncompliance with this
     statutory provision gives rise to a presumption of prejudice,
     and the State has the burden of overcoming that presumption. 
     
9.   Appeal & error -- contemporaneous objection generally must be
     made at trial to raise argument on appeal -- denial of right
     to trial by jury in criminal case without waiver is exception
     to contemporaneous-objection rule. -- Although the general
     rule in Arkansas is that a contemporaneous objection must be
     made in the trial court in order to raise an argument on
     appeal, the denial of the right to trial by jury in a criminal
     case, without the requisite waiver in accordance with the law,
     is a serious error for which the trial court should intervene,
     and is therefore an exception to the contemporaneous-objection
     rule.   

10.  Criminal law -- judge improperly entered jury room during
     deliberations -- trial judge's violation of Ark. Code Ann. 
     16-89-125(e) prejudicial to appellant -- case reversed and
     remanded for resentencing. -- Appellant's request that her
     sentence be reversed and remanded for a new sentencing because
     the trial judge improperly entered the jury room and
     communicated with the jurors during their deliberations was
     well taken where the State did not meet its burden of showing
     what occurred during the judge's visit to the jury room; the
     trial judge's violation of Ark. Code Ann.  16-89-125(e) was
     deemed prejudicial to appellant where the trial court's
     failure to comply with  16-89-125(e) resulted in both
     appellant and her counsel being absent when a substantial step
     was taken in her case; the trial court's error in failing to
     comply with  16-89-125(e) deprived appellant of a fundamental
     right which required protection, and as such, was an exception
     to the contemporaneous-objection rule; because the State
     failed to rebut the presumption of prejudice, the cause was
     reversed and remanded for resentencing.


     Appeal from Carroll Circuit Court; Tom Keith, Judge; reversed
in part and remanded in part.

     Vowell & Atchley, P.A., by:  Stevan E. Vowell and Hatfield &
Lassiter, by:  Jack T. Lassiter, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Vada Berger, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.
     Appellant Belynda Faye Goff was convicted of first-degree
murder of her husband and sentenced to life in prison.  She raises
four points for reversal.  
     Ms. Goff first argues the trial court erred in denying her
motion for directed verdict because the State failed to prove she
purposely caused the death of her husband Stephen.  The State's
case was premised on circumstantial evidence, but as this court has
previously and consistently held, evidence, whether direct or
circumstantial, is sufficient to support a conviction if the
evidence is forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a
conclusion one way or the other.  Williams v. State, 329 Ark. 8,
946 S.W.2d 678 (1997).  In determining the sufficiency of the
evidence, we need only ascertain that evidence most favorable to
the appellee; it is permissible to consider only that testimony
which supports the verdict of guilty.  Hall v. State, 315 Ark. 385,