Opinion ID: 2444390
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: debra ann faulkner

Text: Faulkner, for her part, urges that the evidence at trial was insufficient to sustain a guilty verdict for either second degree murder or possession of a firearm by certain persons. At the close of the first day of trial, Faulkner moved only for a directed verdict on her capital murder charge. We have held that such a limited motion does not preserve the issue of sufficiency of the evidence for a second-degree murder conviction. Hickson v. State, 312 Ark. 171, 847 S.W.2d 691 (1993). The following morning, however, the trial court considered Faulkner's motion as encompassing lesser included offenses and the felon/firearm charge. He again denied the motion for directed verdict, and Banks and Faulkner proceeded with their respective cases. Because the trial court weighed the issues now raised on appeal, we will consider them. Faulkner urges that the state failed to present proof that she acted as an accomplice to the murder. In this regard, she maintains that there was no evidence that she was aware of Banks's intent or plan to shoot Williams. On appeal, when the theory of accomplice liability is implicated, the case is affirmed if there is sufficient evidence that Faulkner acted as an accomplice in committing the alleged offense. Purifoy v. State, 307 Ark. 482, 822 S.W.2d 374 (1991). An accomplice is one who, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense, solicits, advises, encourages, coerces, aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid another person in the planning or committing of the offense. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-403 (1987). Mere presence, acquiescence, silence, or knowledge that a crime is being committed, in the absence of a legal duty to act, is not sufficient to make the person an accomplice. Fight v. State, 314 Ark. 438, 863 S.W.2d 800 (1993). Relevant factors in determining the connection of an accomplice to a crime are the presence of the accused in proximity of a crime, the opportunity to commit the crime, and an association with a person involved in the crime in a manner suggestive of joint participation. Smith v. State, 310 Ark. 247, 837 S.W.2d 279 (1992). Faulkner was found guilty of second degree murder as an accomplice to the actions of Banks. There is ample evidence to support her conviction as an accomplice. In her testimony at trial, she admits telling Banks that Williams had previously threatened her and stolen a shirt from her. She also stated that she identified the victim to Banks. She accompanied Banks when he followed Williams in the truck and when he returned to the victim's apartment. She also went to the door of Williams's apartment with Banks, and the victim shouted obscenities at her. She watched as Banks took the shotgun from the truck. Faulkner also testified that she fled the scene of the crime with Banks and was there when the shotgun was returned to Banks's brother, Eugene Hampton. Second degree murder is committed when one, with the purpose of causing serious physical injury, causes the death of a person. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-10-103 (Supp.1991). Evidence abounded that Banks intended to cause Williams serious physical injury, and Faulkner aided in this effort. The fact that she did not intend to murder Williams and did not know that Banks intended to do so is not an element of the offense. Her argument on this point is without merit. Faulkner further contends that sufficient proof that she possessed the shotgun, as a convicted felon, was lacking. She admitted her felony conviction but maintained that she did not exercise any control over the weapon so as to be guilty of Ark.Code Ann. § 5-73-103 (Supp.1991). We disagree. She certainly occupied the truck with Banks where the shotgun was located in plain view between the seats which made it immediately accessible to her and subject to her control. In analogous contraband cases, we have held this to be sufficient to constitute constructive possession. See, e.g., Plotts v. State, 297 Ark. 66, 759 S.W.2d 793 (1988). We have also applied this test to possession of firearms by way of dictum. Moore v. State, 304 Ark. 257, 801 S.W.2d 638 (1990). Finally, it was Faulkner, who returned the shotgun to its owner. We cannot say that these circumstances do not support the conviction. Affirmed. HOLT, C.J., not participating.