Opinion ID: 2356665
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Withholding Property for the Purpose of Permanent Deprivation

Text: Winston specifically contends that he did not have the intent to commit the theft of Rivers's car because at most he temporarily deprived Rivers of the control of her vehicle. Winston's reliance on this proposition is misplaced. In past cases, we have stressed that the focus of aggravated robbery is on the physical force used or threatened and if the defendant has the intent to commit a theft, no actual transfer of property needs to take place for the offense to be complete. Williams v. State, 351 Ark. 215, 91 S.W.3d 54 (2002). Also, in Moore v. State, 299 Ark. 532, 773 S.W.2d 834 (1989), we clarified that the theft statute, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-36-103(a)(1), makes no exception for a temporary deprivation. Id. at 536, 773 S.W.2d at 837. In Moore v. State, supra , the appellant took the victim's car from a parking lot with her young child inside, but Moore later abandoned the car and the child. Id. On appeal he claimed that he did not intend to permanently deprive the victim of her car, but rather he only wanted to borrow the car for a temporary period. Id. This court determined that the evidence was sufficient to show that Moore intended to permanently deprive the victim of her car for at least the time that he was in possession of it, if not longer, and because no exceptions are made for temporary deprivations, we concluded that Moore did have the requisite intent to commit theft and affirmed his conviction. Id. As in Moore, the jury in the instant case could have concluded from the evidence that Winston intended to permanently deprive Rivers of her property for at least the time he was in possession of it. Here, the jury heard testimony from Rivers that Winston continuously beat her while requesting the car keys and even resorted to biting off her fingertips to get the keys. Rivers also testified that Winston took complete control of her car and would not let her escape. This testimony was corroborated by witnesses Arzell Phillips and Keith Jones, who both attempted to help Rivers. Winston himself admitted that he was controlling Rivers and her car so that he could achieve his original objectivegetting Rivers to his home to view and purchase the furniture. Thus, a jury could reasonably conclude that even if Rivers was never completely expelled from the car, Winston took control of the car for his own purposes, thereby exercising constructive possession of Rivers's car. What is more, even if the deprivation here was only temporary, under Moore a temporary deprivation can be sufficient to establish the requisite intent-to-commit-a-theft element of an aggravated robbery charge. Furthermore, the jury heard extensive evidence that tended to refute Winston's story that Rivers was the initial aggressor and that, as her boyfriend, he only wanted to temporarily use her car. First, while Winston testified he and Rivers merely wrestled in the driveway, Arzell Phillips testified that he saw a man beating Rivers, and crime scene photographs depicted the driveway as being covered by large splatters of blood. Also, Winston alleged that he only restrained Rivers from escaping the car by holding her hand, but Keith Jones testified that Winston was holding Rivers by her hair and crime scene photographs revealed the car's bloody interior and large chunks of hair wrapped around the car's gear shift. Additionally, Officer Green testified that Winston looked fine when police arrived on the scene, but Rivers was in very poor physical shape. Finally, the evidence of the brutal force that Winston employed to take control of Rivers and the car indicates that he did not intend to simply borrow the car from Rivers to go to his house, especially when one considers that Rivers had already agreed to take Winston home. Rather, the evidence points to the conclusion that he intended to permanently deprive Rivers of her car, even if his plan never came to fruition. We have held that the determination of the credibility of trial witnesses and the weighing of evidence are solely within the province of the jury, and the jury is entitled to disbelieve the testimony of an accused. Moore v. State, 315 Ark. 131, 864 S.W.2d 863 (1993); see also Jones v. State, supra . Moreover, an accused's improbable explanation for suspicious circumstances may be admissible as proof of his guilt. Jester v. State, 367 Ark. 249, 239 S.W.3d 484 (2006). Basically, the jury was not obligated to believe Winston's explanation of the eventsthat he believed that everything would be okay once he got Rivers to his house even after he inflicted such severe injuries on herand could view his story as another indicator of his guilt. Accordingly, they were free to determine that Winston meant not only to temporarily deprive Rivers of her car but also to cause a permanent deprivation. The jury's verdict is supported by substantial evidence that Winston intended to commit the theft of Rivers's car. Thus, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in denying his directed-verdict motions. Winston cites the Arkansas Court of (2003). Appeals' decision in Greer v. State, 77 Ark. App. 180, 72 S.W.3d 893 (2002), for the proposition that this court should not affirm the circuit court when a defendant only intended to temporarily control the victim's property. The facts in Greer , however, are not at all similar to the facts here. In that case, the accused was convicted of the theft of his mother's car, but the record revealed that the accused lived with his mother and had a habit of taking the car without her permission. Id. Additionally, the accused's mother made it a regular practice to call the police when her son did not return the car on time. Id. The Court of Appeals determined that Moore v. State, supra , did not apply and concluded that the judgment against the accused was not supported by substantial evidence. Id. Greer presented a very different situation from that in Moore and the instant case. In Greer , the accused had established a pattern of taking his mother's car and returning it after he was done. Greer v. State, supra . Thus, a reasonable juror could not infer, beyond the bounds of speculation and conjecture, that Greer intended to permanently deprive his mother of her vehicle. Id. Unlike the situation in Greer , in Moore and the instant case, the victims' cars were taken by force, which evidence is sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the accused did not intend to return the car to the victim. In sum, Greer is inapposite here.