Opinion ID: 2453032
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: McFarland's first argument is that the trial court erred in refusing to direct a verdict in his favor on both the capital murder and kidnapping charges due to the absence of substantial evidence. He contends that a directed verdict was proper for the capital murder count because the State failed to prove that he acted with a premeditated and deliberate purpose in the murder. He also claims that with regard to the kidnapping charge, the State did not prove that Melbourne was restrained involuntarily. Motions for directed verdict are treated as challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. See Russey v. State, 336 Ark. 401, 985 S.W.2d 316 (1999); Johnson v. State, 326 Ark. 3, 929 S.W.2d 707 (1996). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, this court does not reweigh the evidence but determines instead whether the evidence supporting the verdict is substantial. See Davis v. State, 325 Ark. 96, 925 S.W.2d 768 (1996). Substantial evidence is defined as direct or circumstantial evidence that is forceful enough to compel a conclusion and goes beyond mere speculation or conjecture. See Bailey v. State, 334 Ark. 43, 972 S.W.2d 239 (1998). In determining whether there is substantial evidence, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. See Dixon v. State, 310 Ark. 460, 839 S.W.2d 173 (1992). Only evidence supporting the verdict is considered. See Moore v. State, 315 Ark. 131, 864 S.W.2d 863 (1993). A person commits capital murder if [w]ith the premeditated and deliberated purpose of causing the death of another person he causes the death of any person. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101(a)(4) (Repl.1997). McFarland urges that the State failed to show that he acted with a premeditated and deliberate purpose and, thus, a directed verdict in his favor was proper. He emphasizes that Jason McGehee led the group and decided what would be done. Because intent can rarely be proved by direct evidence, a jury may infer premeditation and deliberation from circumstantial evidence such as the type and character of the weapon used, the manner in which the weapon was used, the nature, extent, and location of the wounds inflicted, and the conduct of the accused. See Lever v. State, 333 Ark. 377, 971 S.W.2d 762 (1998); Lloyd v. State, 332 Ark. 1, 962 S.W.2d 365 (1998). The necessary premeditation and deliberation is not required to exist for a particular length of time and may be formed in an instant. See Lever v. State, supra ; Key v. State, 325 Ark. 73, 923 S.W.2d 865 (1996). Contrary to McFarland's assertion, there is sufficient evidence of McFarland's premeditation and deliberation. On the way to Omaha, the question was asked Melbourne, either by McFarland or in McFarland's presence: How does it feel to know you're going to die? His death was the culmination of two prolonged beatings and torture. McGehee, Epps, and McFarland led Melbourne out to the back of the house in Omaha and were there for forty-five minutes, taking turns strangling him. An orange cord was used by McFarland to finally kill Melbourne. One can infer premeditation from the method of death itselfstrangulation. See, e.g., Mulkey v. State, 330 Ark. 113, 952 S.W.2d 149 (1997) (jury could infer the defendant's purpose in causing the victim's death from the blunt-force injuries to the head and evidence of strangulation). Additionally, McFarland was asked when giving his statement: When you took him out there did you think you might wind up killing him? He answered: The thought had crossed my mind a couple of times that that's what might happen. He also stated that the first time he thought about it was on the way to Omaha. McFarland said that the three participants had become enraged and that he was angry because Melbourne had implicated him in a crime he had not committed. Robert Diemert testified that the three young men came back from the woods laughing. In sum, there is substantial evidence of Melbourne's premeditated and deliberate intent to commit capital murder. Regarding the kidnapping, Melbourne contends that the State failed to prove that Melbourne was transported or restrained without his consent. Kidnapping requires the restraint of another: (a) A person commits the offense of kidnapping if, without consent, he restrains another person so as to interfere substantially with his liberty with the purpose of: . . . . (4) Inflicting physical injury upon him, or of engaging in sexual intercourse, deviate sexual activity, or sexual contact with him; or (5) Terrorizing him or another person.... Ark.Code Ann. § 5-11-102 (Repl.1997). This court has held that this statute speaks in terms of restraint and not removal. See Lee v. State, 326 Ark. 529, 932 S.W.2d 756 (1996). Hence, the statute reaches a greater variety of conduct because restraint can be accomplished without removal. See Smith v. State, 318 Ark. 142, 883 S.W.2d 837 (1994). Here, there are several different acts that constitute kidnappingforcing Melbourne to stay in the North Spring Street house during the beating in Harrison, removing him to Omaha with hands tied, and preventing him from leaving the house in Omaha. It is true that Melbourne did come to the house on North Spring Street voluntarily, but the evidence established that his hands were bound at the house in Harrison, during the trip to Omaha, and in the house at Omaha. McFarland relies on the fact that Diemert testified that he thought Melbourne came on the Utah trip voluntarily. Diemert, however, did not realize that his hands were bound until the group got out of the car in Omaha. Regardless of that testimony, Diemert did acknowledge that Melbourne was restrained, and we view the evidence in favor of the State. The trial court did not err in refusing to direct a verdict on either charge.