Opinion ID: 3172998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Directed Verdict—Credibility

Text: Counsel contends that the circuit court did not err in denying appellant’s motions for directed verdict. On appeal, we treat a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. E.g., Anderson v. State, 2011 Ark. 461, at 3, 385 S.W.3d 214, 217. This court determines whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id., 385 S.W.3d at 218. Substantial evidence is evidence that is forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id., 385 S.W.3d at 218. The evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, and only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. Id., 385 S.W.3d at 218. A person commits first-degree murder if “[w]ith a purpose of causing the death of another person, the person causes the death of another person.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10102(a)(2) (Repl. 2013). “A person commits a terroristic act if, while not in the commission of a lawful act, the person [s]hoots at or in any manner projects an object at a conveyance which is being operated or which is occupied by another person with the purpose to cause 3 Cite as 2016 Ark. 20 injury to another person or damage to property.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-310(a)(1) (Repl. 2013). “A person acts purposely with respect to his or her conduct or a result of his or her conduct when it is the person’s conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause the result.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202(1) (Repl. 2013). At trial, appellant moved for a directed verdict, contending that the State had presented no credible evidence to maintain the charges. Specifically, appellant argued, [W]e note the lack of credibility of witnesses due to their prior inconsistent statements and motives to lie based on their testimony here in court and the fact that they had charges pending or wanted to avoid having charges brought at all against them. The State responded, I would ask the court to recall the testimony of the witnesses, specifically not only the law enforcement officers, but Demetrica Satterwhite, Phillip Blackwell, Shae Jones, and Justin Benton who were all present at the time this shooting occurred. Demetrica Satterwhite specifically testified that it was Serandon Starling who fired the gun that killed P.J. Phillip Blackwell specifically stated that it was Serandon Starling that fired the weapon. Shae Jones specifically stated that Serandon Starling had a weapon that he produced from his waistband when he got out of the car and she saw him with it again when he returned to the car. And Justin Benton stated that he saw Serandon Starling retrieve a gun from his Camero [sic] before getting into the car. He always carried a .45 and that he specifically recalled Serandon Starling shooting that .45 striking P.J.’s car. The bullet that was recovered from P.J.’s head was a .45 which can be directly linked back to the gun that Mr. Starling possessed and shot. Regarding their motive to testify, there are . . . no charges pending against Shae Jones nor has there been any indication to her by the State that any charges would be brought. Mr. Benton currently has charges pending and no agreements have been made by the State with Mr. Benton. Demetrica Satterwhite has charges pending and she specifically testified under oath that no promises have been made to her by the State in exchange for her testimony. No plea bargains have been made by the State, with the State in exchange for her testimony. 4 Cite as 2016 Ark. 20 Variances and discrepancies in the proof go to the weight or credibility of the evidence and matters for the fact-finder to resolve. Marts v. State, 332 Ark. 628, 644, 968 S.W.2d 41, 49 (1998).The trier of fact is free to believe all or part of any witness’s testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. E.g., Burley v. State, 348 Ark. 422, 430, 73 S.W.3d 600, 605 (2002). Accordingly, when there is evidence of a defendant’s guilt, even if it is conflicting, it is for the jury as fact-finder to resolve any conflicts and inconsistencies; it is not for the court to resolve on a directed-verdict motion. Marts, 332 Ark. at 644, 968 S.W.2d at 49; see also State v. Long, 311 Ark. 248, 251, 844 S.W.2d 302, 304 (1992) (stating that “when a trial court exceeds its duty to determine the sufficiency of the evidence by judging the credibility of the evidence, it commits an error that requires correction”). In his directed-verdict motions, appellant did not specify which witnesses gave inconsistent prior statements, which witnesses were motivated to lie because they had charges pending, or which witnesses wanted to avoid charges. Nevertheless, we conclude that, through the testimony and evidence presented at trial, the jury was apprised of the witnesses’ involvement in the crime. Moreover, the jury heard testimony regarding whether witnesses had pending charges. Satterwhite and Phillip Blackwell, who was a passenger in the gold car, testified that appellant shot at P.J.’s vehicle. Satterwhite testified that she was incarcerated in the Miller County Sheriff’s Department with a charge pending for first-degree murder. She stated that she was testifying for the State but that the State had made her no promises and that she had not 5 Cite as 2016 Ark. 20 received a plea deal for her testimony. Shae Jones, appellant’s girlfriend, testified that she was with appellant at the time of the murder, that appellant had a weapon that he produced from his pocket when he got out of the car, and that she saw him with the gun when he returned to the car. Justin Benton testified that he saw appellant shoot at P.J. Benton also testified that he faced criminal charges for hindering apprehension in connection with the murder. The jury has the sole authority to evaluate the credibility of evidence and to apportion the weight to be given to the evidence. E.g., Smoak v. State, 2011 Ark. 529, at 6, 385 S.W.3d 257, 261. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, we conclude that it was reasonable for the jury to infer from the circumstances that appellant committed the offenses of first-degree murder and terroristic act. We hold that the circuit court did not err in denying appellant’s motions for directed verdict.