Opinion ID: 2444390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: kenneth anthony banks

Text: Banks first argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his convictions for first-degree murder and felon-in-possessionof-a-firearm. On appeal, we test the sufficiency of the evidence before considering other assignments of error. Cleveland v. State, 315 Ark. 91, 865 S.W.2d 285 (1993). The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence. Moore v. State, 315 Ark. 131, 864 S.W.2d 863 (1993). Substantial evidence is evidence which is forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other and which goes beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and consider only that evidence which tends to support the verdict. McClure v. State, 314 Ark. 35, 858 S.W.2d 103 (1993). At trial, Banks stated that he was angered by what Williams had done to his wife and her sister. He admitted that he confronted the victim and shot him with a shotgun. Ruby Haynes testified that he threatened Williams first and then shot him without provocation as he tried to run into his apartment. Williams was shot in the left back area. No gun was found on the victim or on the premises. Both Haynes and another apartment resident, Robert Battles, testified that Williams had no guns. Banks then fled. This evidence, under any test, is sufficiently substantial to sustain a first-degree-murder conviction. Banks argues for reversal on the basis that the shooting was justified because he thought that the victim was reaching for a gun. This argument was made to the jury, and the jury was instructed on self-defense. It chose not to accept the defense. Irrespective of Banks's evidence on this point, on appeal we need only consider that evidence which supports the verdict, and we have concluded that the proof is substantial. Ricketts v. State, 292 Ark. 256, 729 S.W.2d 400 (1987). The trial court correctly denied the motion for directed verdict. For his second point, Banks contends that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his motion to declare a mistrial. He cites this court to Fantine's testimony that she received a threatening phone call from the Pulaski County jail to the effect that if she testified, she would be killed. This left the clear impression with the jury, according to Banks, that he was behind the call while a resident of the jail. We disagree that any prejudice requiring a mistrial transpired. A mistrial is a drastic remedy and proper only where the error is beyond repair and cannot be corrected by any other curative relief. Meny v. State, 314 Ark. 158, 861 S.W.2d 303 (1993); Sullinger v. State, 310 Ark. 690, 840 S.W.2d 797 (1992). The trial court has wide discretion in granting or denying a motion for mistrial, and its decision will not be disturbed except where there is an abuse of discretion or manifest prejudice to the complaining party. Magar v. State, 308 Ark. 380, 826 S.W.2d 221 (1992); Davasher v. State, 308 Ark. 154, 823 S.W.2d 863 (1992). At trial, Banks moved for a mistrial based on perceived prejudice arising from the following colloquy: Prosecutor: Have you talked to Debra or Kenneth since this case has been set for trial? Fantine: Yes, I have. Prosecutor: Have you talked toWhen did you talk to Kenneth? Fantine: I didn't talk to him, talk to him on the phone. I got a threatening call but I mean I'm not saying it was his voice but somebody called me and threatened my life if I showed up in court. . . . . Prosecutor: Did you receive a phone call from Kenneth Banks? Fantine: I received a phone call from the county jail. I can't say if it was his voice. Alls that I heard was a collect from Debra and I accepted it and they said if you show up in court you won't live to see the next day. Prosecutor: It was collect from where? Fantine: The county jail. Correction facility. Prosecutor: Okay. And where was Kenneth Banks at the time? Fantine: In the Correctional At that point the motion for mistrial was made, and the trial court denied it. The court next asked defense counsel if a curative instruction was desired. The defense chose not to take advantage of this relief. Banks now asserts that Fantine's testimony suggested that Banks had acknowledged his guilt by threatening Fantine in an attempt to manipulate her testimony. On the issue at hand, we previously have stated that facts which indicate that a defendant is incarcerated are not prejudicial per se. See Hill v. State, 285 Ark. 77, 685 S.W.2d 495 (1985). We further have stated that prejudice will not be presumed. Id. In the instant case, any prejudice that resulted from this colloquy is remote. Fantine denied before the jury that the telephone voice was that of Banks. Further, the fact that Banks was in jail was not prejudicial in and of itself. It would come as no surprise to the jury to learn that a person charged with capital murder was a resident of the county jail before trial. Any lingering implication that Banks was behind the call was speculative at best. Moreover, any prejudice could well have been cured by a jury admonishment, and this was not requested. An admonishment is the proper remedy where the assertion of prejudice is highly speculative, which was certainly the situation in the case before us. See Russey & Way v. State, 257 Ark. 570, 519 S.W.2d 751 (1975). The dramatic remedy of a mistrial was simply not warranted. The trial court did not abuse its discretion in denying the motion.