Case Name: Chester WARREN v. STATE of Arkansas
Court: Arkansas Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Arkansas
Decision Date: 1981-03-23
Citations: 272 Ark. 231
Docket Number: CR 80-210
Parties: Chester WARREN v. STATE of Arkansas
Judges: Purtle, J., dissents.
Reporter: Arkansas Reports
Volume: 272
Pages: 231–240

Head Matter:
Chester WARREN v. STATE of Arkansas
CR 80-210
613 S.W. 2d 97
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Opinion delivered March 23, 1981
Ernie Witt and Tom Donovan, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: C. R. McNair, III, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.

Opinion:
Robert H. Dudley, Justice.
Appellant Chester Warren was convicted of terroristic threatening, a class D felony. The facts are basically undisputed. Troyce Jones, a county employee, and Billy Workman, a passenger, were in the process of grading a road in Yell County, when the appellant came out of some adjoining woods armed with a rifle. The men continued grading until appellant insisted they stop. When both men got down from the grader, appellant pointed his rifle at them and threatened to shoot one of them, Billy Workman. They did get back on the grader without any shots being fired and continued to grade the road. However, appellant threatened to shoot at the grader if they did not raise the blade. Apparently he was under the impression that the grader was on his land alongside the road and the road was not a county one but a private road running through his property.
We have taken jurisdiction in this case to interpret and construe Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1608 (Repl. 1977), the terroristic threatening statute. Appellant makes the novel argument that the facts proven might constitute an assault, but not terroristic threatening. His reasoning, based on the comments to the Arkansas Criminal Code, is as follows: Assaults are traditional offenses and involve risks of (1) death, (2) serious physical injury, (3) physical injury and (4) purposeful creation of apprehension of imminent physical harm. Terroristic threatening is a new statutory offense and is designed to protect against fear of safety where the apprehension arises from conduct not punishable as assaultive because imminent injury is not threatened. That is, terroristic threatening involves conduct causing a prolonged state of fear, while an assault does not have this protracted impact. For example, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1607 (Repl. 1977) provides: "A person commits assault in the third degree if he purposely creates apprehension of imminent physical injury in another person."
Appellant acknowledges that the assault, or imminent injury statute is only a misdemeanor statute, while the terroristic threatening provision is a felony statute.
The statute involved, Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-1608 (Repl. 1977) is as follows:
Terroristic threatening. — (1) A person commits the offense of terroristic threatening if with the purpose [of] terrorizing another person he threatens to cause death or serious physical injury or substantial property damage to another person.
(2) Terroristic threatening is a class D felony. [Acts of 1975, No. 280, § 1608, p. 500.]
While we strictly construe a penal statute, we find no language which requires terrorizing over a prolonged period of time.
We use three well settled rules of review in determining whether the evidence is sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt. We view the evidence in a light most favorable to the appellee, the State here. Milburn v. State, 262 Ark. 267, 555 S.W. 2d 946 (1977). The jury's finding of guilt will be upheld if there is any substantial evidence to support it. McCree v. State, 266 Ark. 465, 585 S.W. 2d 938 (1979). It is not the function of an appellate court to weigh evidence or judge the credibility of witnesses; that is the function of the jury. Barnes v.State, 258 Ark. 565, 528 S.W. 2d 370(1975). There is substantial evidence that appellant, while armed with a rifle, threatened to shoot both prosecuting witnesses, and intended to cause, and did cause, both of them to fear for their lives.
The jury made its finding and there is substantial evidence to support it.
The assault statutes and the terroristic threatening statute overlap and we do not consider the issue other than to state that in Cromwell v. State,269 Ark. 104, 598 S.W. 2d 733(1980) and Wilson v. State, 271 Ark. 682, 611 S.W. 2d 739 (1981), we noted that the mere overlapping of statutory provisions does not render a statute unconstitutional.
In this second assignment of error, appellant contends that a remark made by the trial judge in the presence of the jury constituted a comment on the evidence requiring reversal. We disagree.
Prior to trial, the court entered a discovery order requiring disclosure of any defense to be used at trial. The defendant did not respond. At trial one of the defense attorneys began to ask a series of questions going to the legal status of the road on which the incident occurred. The trial judge, not knowing appellant's defense, after an objection, questioned relevancy of this testimony. A colloquy occurred between counsel and the attorneys for both sides. Finally, the judge stated:
What's puzzling me is what difference does it make? I don't think it's relevant is what I am saying.
An in-chambers conference followed and appellant's attorney was then allowed to pursue the line of inquiry.
Article 7, § 23 of our constitution states that judges shall not "charge juries with regard to matters of fact" and so precludes them from commenting on the evidence. The judge is not to influence the jury with regard to the credibility of witnesses or the weight to be given their testimony. The prohibition applies not only to charges, but to colloquys with lawyers in the jury's hearing. Fuller v. State, 217 Ark. 679, 232 S.W. 2d 988 (1950). Clearly, if this inquiry into relevance could influence the jury in any manner, the case must be reversed, but since the appellant was allowed to pursue the line of questioning after the inquiry, we can see no possible inference on credibility, weight to be given, or any other matter. We hold the questioning into relevancy did not amount to a comment on the evidence.
Appellant contends that the trial judge was unmerited in the rebuke of a witness. The point was not preserved with an objection, and no authority is cited. Therefore, we do not consider the point. Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W. 2d 366 (1980).
Appellant makes three additional assignments of error which relate to evidentiary rulings. We find no reversible error in those rulings and we find no principles of law or statutory interpretation which necessitate discussion.
However, it is necessary to state why this majority opinion does not consider two issues that are mentioned in the dissenting opinion: the reaction of the trial judge to the bickering of the attorneys and the form of the verdict rendered by the jury. The reason is because there were no objections to either of these issues below and no argument has been made on either issue here. As a result, there has been no adversary representation of both sides.
The importance of an adversary procedure is illustrated by the alleged error in the form of the verdict discussed in the dissent. We do not know what instructions were given with regard to the verdict, nor do we know what forms of verdict were given to the jury. We do not know whether there was a verdict for finding the appellant guilty or not guilty of terroristic threatening. We also do not know what appellant was found guilty of — we only know the fine was in the amount of $500. We know that the attorneys for the appellant chose, perhaps as a carefully considered matter of trial strategy, not to object and not to abstract or argue the matter on appeal. The majority feel that it would amount to speculation if we consider the issue under these circumstances; the same reasoning applies to the other non-preserved and unargued issue.
The case of Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 at 785, 606 S.W. 2d 366 (1980) contains a clear and complete description of our rule that an argument for reversal will not be considered in the absence of an appropriate objection in the trial court. We expressly rejected the "plain error" rule in that case and these issues do not fall within one of the enumerated exceptions to our rule. See Wicks, supra. We do not intend to deviate from our policy concerning non-preserved issues; thus, we did not consider the aforementioned issues.
Affirmed.
Purtle, J., dissents.