Cite as 2023 Ark. 138



## SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR

- 22

- 821

KEITH JEFFERY WOFFORD APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE Opinion Delivered: October 12, 2023

APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [ NO. 23CR

- 21

- 12 ]
HONORABLE TROY B. BRASWELL, JR. , JUDGE
AFFIRMED

.

SHAWN A. WOMACK , Associate Justice Keith Wofford appeals his capital murder conviction and life

- imprisonment sentence

. He asserts that the State failed to present sufficient evidence of the requisite culpable mental
state due to his use of the prescription drug Wellbutrin and the absence of attempts to
conceal the crime. We hold that substantial evidence supports Wofford ’s capital

- murder
conviction . The conviction is affirmed.
I. Factual Background On December 26, 2020, Keith Wofford murdered his ex

- wife, Amber Cooksey , by
stab bing her forty

- five times with a kitchen kni fe in her head, neck, chest, and hands. Afterward, he left her deceased body on the bedroom floor w hile attending to personal tasks such as showering, putting on fresh clothes, and contacting his mother. Following these events, Wofford call ed 911, reporting his responsibility for Cooksey ’ s death. He alleged that Cooksey had connections to certain illi cit activities, including prostitution, and had affiliations with unnamed individuals who purportedly2

engaged in electronic hacking of his devices and financial theft. Wofford assert ed that his actions were influenced by involuntary intoxication due to hi s use of the prescription
medication Wellbutrin

. T he jury heard this defense and found it un compelling and

conv icted Wofford of capital murder , and subsequently sentenced him to life imprisonment

. At the time of the murder , Wofford and Cooksey had been divorced for several years and shar ed three children. On the morning of the murder , Cooksey purchased groceries and spoke on the phone with Wofford. Later in the day, she made her way to Wofford ’ s residence , where he killed her

. Upon the arrival of law enforcement in response to
Wofford ’ s 911 call, Cooksey ’ s groceries were found undisturbed in her car , which was parked in Wofford ’ s driveway. It was observed that a pork loin she had acquired was still cool to the touch, ind icating its recent purchase.
The crime

- scene analysis revealed Cooksey ’ s deceased body in the master bedroom
of Wofford ’ s home. She had forty

- five stab wounds, including six that were identified on her head, accompanied by an additional twelve stab wound s on her neck, all of which were
inflicted while she was alive. Notably, two of the neck wounds were of such a substantial

nature that they sever ed her right carotid artery and jugular vein , resulting in a limited
window of consciousness for Cooksey after their infliction . These wounds were characterized by a downward stabbing motion , indicating that Wofford was above or on top of her. Among the remaining injurie s were seven stab wounds to Cooksey ’ s torso and
an additional fifteen wounds to her hands . The cause of death was attributed to blood loss resulting from the injuries to her carotid artery and jugular vein. Wofford acknowledged that he and Cooksey had argued before the violent act took place. However, he asserted that he had no memory of committing the murder. After the3

incident, he recalled reaching out to his mother, showering, and changing clothes. Despite these recollections, he claimed that details of his 911 call remained hazy. Throughout the trial, Wofford admitted to his role in Cooksey ’ s death while invoking an affirmative defense centered on involuntary intoxication due to his Wellbutrin usage. His prescription included

a n initial daily dosage o f 150 milligrams, which was later increased to 300 milligrams after discussing his persistent depression with a physician assistant. Wofford acknowledged voluntarily exceeding the prescribed dosage at times, including on the day prior to the
murder

. Addi tional evidence was presented to highlight his unconventional behavior leading up to the murder

. This included a previous encounter with law enforcement, his recent job termination on the grounds of hacking claims, and his 911 call implicating Cooksey in
illicit activities. The state of the crime scene indicated signs of disturbance, with electronic items disassembled in the living room and evidence of damage in the bathroom area. The weeks preceding the murder were marked by observations from Wofford ’ s therapist and his divorce attorney, who both noted his unusual conduct. A pharmacist, serving as an expert witness for the defense, testified about the potential of Wellbutrin to
in duce paranoid and homicidal thoughts in rare instances. However, the lack of specific information regarding Wofford ’ s prescription and usage limited her assessment. In this appeal , Wofford maintains his asserti o n that the State failed to present
sufficie nt evidence of the requisite culpable mental state due to his Wellbutrin use and the absence of attempts to conceal the crime. This claim has persisted from the initial trial proceedings to his current legal stance.4 II. Analysis Wofford’s sole point on a ppeal is that t he trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence to convict him of capital murder

. When considering a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this c ourt will view the
evidence i n the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports
the verdict. Collins v. State , 2021 Ark. 35, at 4, 617 S.W.3d 701, 704. We will affirm a
conviction if there is substantial evidence to support it. Id

. Substantial ev idence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id

. The jury, rather than this

c ourt, is responsible for resolving questions concerning the credibility of witnesses. Id

. In resolving conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence, the jury is entitled to choose to believe the State’s account of the facts rather than the defendant’s version. Dunn v. State , 371 Ark. 140, 147, 264 S.W.3d 504, 508 (2007).
Wofford attempted to raise the affirmative defense of involuntary intoxication to the
murder . The jury, responsible for resolving questions concerning his credibility, chose to
accept the State’s presentation of the case rather tha n Wofford’s. 1 We cannot second

- guess the jury’s assessments on appeal, and their decision not to accept Wofford’s a rgument was within their properly informed discretion

. Since the jury adequately heard and subsequently rejected the affirmative

- defense a rgument, what is left is for us to evaluate whether

1 Despite the presentation of evidence regarding Wofford's prescribed use of Wellbutrin, the associated concerns, his postmurder behavior, and his assertion of involuntary intoxication, the jury still determined that he possessed the necessary intent, which was within the scope of its responsibility to decide.5

substantial evidence supports Wofford’s conviction

. We conclude that substantial evidence supports Wofford’s conviction

. Wofford inflicted forty

- five stab wounds on Cooksey, targeting her face, neck, c hest,
and hands. Twelve of the knife wounds to her neck occurred while she was still alive , and
her right carotid artery and jugular vein were severed completely on two separate occasions.
Six of the wounds were to her head and seven to her chest. Wofford’s actions, when considered together, present compelling evidence of premeditation and deliberation, contradicting his claims to the contrary. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5

- 10

- 101(a)(4) (“A defendant commits capital murder if, with a premeditated and deli berated purpose of causing another person’s death, the defendant causes the death of any person.”) ; Fudge v. State , 341 Ark. 759, 768, 20 S.W.3d 315, 320 (2000) (“The act of stabbing someone a dozen times indicates some degree of intent beyond not caring w hether that person lives or dies; it shows a kind or level of purpose that rises to premeditation and deliberation.”) Therefore, since substantial evidence supports Wofford ’s capital

- murder conviction
and we find no issue with the jury’s rejection of his a ffirmative

- defense argument, we affirm
the conviction.
I II

. Rule 4

- 3(a) Review
Wofford received a sentence of life imprisonment, so the record has been reviewed for all errors prejudicial to him, as required by Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4

- 3(a). No

rever sible error was found.
Affirmed.
W OOD , J., concurs without opinion. James Law Firm , by: William O. “Bill” James, Jr. , and Drew Curtis , for appellant. Tim Griffin , Att’y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen , Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.