Court Opinion

ID: 9388250
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-04-20 15:02:05.299292+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:18:19.133007
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. 64
                   SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
                                        No.   CR-22-192

                                                  Opinion Delivered:   April 20, 2023

 RAKEEM HARRIS
                               APPELLANT          APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI
                                                  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
 V.                                               [NO. 47BCR-19-122]

 STATE OF ARKANSAS                                HONORABLE CHARLES MOONEY,
                                 APPELLEE         JR., JUDGE

                                                  AFFIRMED.

                              KAREN R. BAKER, Associate Justice

       On September 16, 2021, a Mississippi County Circuit Court jury convicted appellant,

Rakeem Harris, of first-degree murder. Harris was sentenced to life plus an additional 204

months’ imprisonment as a result of sentence enhancements imposed for the use of a firearm

in the commission of a felony and for the commission of first-degree murder in the presence

of a child. On appeal, Harris presents five points: (1) the circuit court’s ruling denying

Harris’s motion for a directed verdict was reversible error; (2) the circuit court erred by

admitting the officer’s recordings of the surveillance video; (3) the circuit court erroneously

submitted an improper jury instruction to the jury; (4) jury misconduct deprived Harris of a

fair trial; and (5) the State’s closing remarks rose to the level of prosecutorial misconduct.

We affirm.
                                 I. Facts and Procedural History

       This appeal stems from the death of Malikk Holliman1 on March 30, 2019. On April

15, 2019, Harris was charged with first-degree murder. On September 14–16, 2021, Harris’s

jury trial was held. The record before us establishes the following facts.

       On March 30, security cameras from Danny’s Store in Blytheville captured

Holliman’s murder from various angles. The surveillance-video footage demonstrated that

Harris arrived at Danny’s Store and parked his car on the left side of the parking lot. Harris

and his child went inside the store and returned to the car shortly after. Holliman is then

seen entering the store. A few moments later, Harris’s brother, Renaldre Harris, pulled into

the parking spot adjacent to Harris. Renaldre parked his car, walked over to where Harris

was parked, and the two had a brief conversation during which Renaldre appeared to be

monitoring the entrance of the store and adjusting his waistband area. Renaldre then entered

the store, and a confrontation with Holliman ensued immediately inside the front door.

Renaldre brandished a handgun, and the two men engaged in a brief physical altercation

inside the store. Holliman ran out the front door as Renaldre chased him. Renaldre fired at

Holliman, and Holliman returned fire as he retreated across the street. Renaldre then ran

back inside the store. During this time, Harris remained in his parked car. Holliman safely

made it across the street but returned to the store moments later, appearing to retrieve the

       1
        The victim is identified both as “Malikk Holliman” and “Malik Holliman.” The
victim’s Social Security card and his state-issued identification card demonstrate that the
correct spelling of his first name is “Malikk.”

                                               2
magazine from his firearm which had fallen on the store’s welcome mat, when Harris stepped

out of his car, fired several shots at Holliman, and then immediately got back into his car

and drove away.

       On December 26, 2019, Harris filed a motion in limine to exclude the videos of the

surveillance-video footage alleging that the evidence lacked sufficient authentication and did

not comply with the Arkansas Rules of Evidence because the videos were recordings of the

footage taken by law enforcement. Harris argued that law enforcement’s recordings of the

security footage could not be properly authenticated because the State lacked testimony of

witnesses who could verify that the video accurately depicted what occurred, describe how

the security system operated and its reliability, and verify the chain of custody of the videos.

Harris further alleged that the videos did not comply with the Arkansas Rules of Evidence

because they were neither originals nor bona fide duplicates, and because the danger of

unfair prejudice and misleading the jury substantially outweighed any probative value the

videos held.

       On January 14, 2020, the circuit court held a hearing on Harris’s motion in limine.

The owner of Danny’s Store, Nasim “Danny” Anaam, testified that he was working on the

day of the murder and explained the specifics of his digital-video-recorder (“DVR”) security

system and the events that transpired on the day of the murder. Anaam explained that the

store’s surveillance cameras recorded twenty-four hours a day, from Sunday to Sunday each

week, and the DVR system recorded over its own footage every seven days. He further

testified that on the day of the murder, the security cameras were running properly, he called

                                               3
law enforcement, and once officers arrived, he provided them access to the DVR system so

that they could view the surveillance-video footage. Anaam testified that when officers asked

him for the original surveillance-video footage from the DVR system, he explained that he

did not know how to provide the video. Anaam testified further that he and his uncle assisted

the officers in navigating through the footage and that the officers started to record videos

of the surveillance-video footage on their cell phones. Anaam testified that although he was

not actively observing law enforcement as they captured the recordings, he did not observe

law enforcement tamper with the DVR system. Finally, Anaam testified that on the same

day, during the investigation, he ultimately provided law enforcement with the entire DVR

system.

       Captain Jeremy Ward and Detective Vanessa Stewart with the Blytheville Police

Department (“BPD”), two of the responding officers to the murder, both testified at the

hearing. Captain Ward and Detective Stewart testified that, to preserve the surveillance-video

footage, they used their BPD-issued cell phones to record the footage as it played on the

monitors at the store. Captain Ward testified that he also took still photographs of the

surveillance-video footage as it played. Captain Ward further testified that the hard drive

from the DVR system was sent to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, but the lab was

unable to extract any of the original surveillance-video footage. Captain Ward and Detective

Stewart testified that upon returning to the station on the day of the murder, they uploaded

the videos from their cell phones directly into the case file in BPD’s record-management

system, a server that houses BPD’s digital evidence. Captain Ward and Detective Stewart

                                              4
further testified that the videos accurately depicted the footage that they had viewed at the

store on the day of the murder and that neither the videos nor the DVR system had been

tampered with.

       At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court denied Harris’s motion in limine,

and an order was entered on September 14, 2021, finding that the testimony at the hearing

provided the proper foundation necessary to authenticate the surveillance-video footage; the

DVR system was functioning properly at the time of the murder; there was no evidence of

evidence tampering with respect to the videos; the State made a good-faith effort to produce

the original surveillance-video footage, which was not available; the surveillance-video

footage was relevant under the circumstances; and the probative value of the videos

substantially outweighed any risk of unfair prejudice.

       At trial, Dr. Stephen Erickson, Deputy Chief Medical Examiner for the State, testified

that Holliman sustained three distinct gunshot wounds that all traveled from back to front.

Dr. Erickson testified that the fatal gunshot entered the back of Holliman’s neck and exited

above his right eyebrow, traveling left to right. With regard to the two remaining gunshots,

Dr. Erickson testified that one of them also traveled from left to right and the other traveled

from right to left. Dr. Erickson further testified that he was unable to determine which of

the three gunshot wounds occurred first, but the official cause of death was “multiple

gunshot wounds.”

                                              5
         Detective Chelsey Grimes2 with the BPD was the lead detective and testified that she

arrived at Danny’s Store on the day of the murder. Detective Grimes testified that the

collected evidence included seven 9mm shell casings that were found in close proximity to

each other, two .40-caliber shell casings, a .40-caliber firearm, a loaded .40-caliber magazine,

and a bullet fragment that was found under Holliman’s body. Finally, Detective Grimes

testified that law enforcement was able to determine that Harris’s car had been located near

the group of 9mm shell casings.

         Deborah Britton,3 Senior Firearm and Toolmark Examiner at the Arkansas State

Crime Laboratory, testified that the seven 9mm shell casings recovered from the scene had

all been fired from the same firearm. Britton further testified that, of the two total .40-caliber

shell casings recovered at the scene, only one of the casings was fired from the .40-caliber

firearm that was recovered beside Holliman’s body. Additionally, Britton testified that, based

on its physical characteristics, the bullet fragment that was found under Holliman’s body was

in the .38-caliber class. Britton explained that 9mm ammunition fits within the .38-caliber

class.

         Without objection, the State introduced six total surveillance videos. Captain Ward

and Detective Stewart testified that they had viewed the surveillance-video footage at Danny’s

         2
        The transcript refers to Detective “Chelsea Grimes,” but the record demonstrates
that the correct spelling of her first name is “Chelsey.”
         3
      The transcript refers to “Debra Brittan,” but the firearms report in the record
demonstrates that the correct spelling is “Deborah Britton.”

                                                6
Store on March 30, 2019. Both officers identified Harris, Renaldre, and Holliman from the

surveillance-video footage and described the events surrounding Holliman’s murder as

depicted on the footage. Detective Stewart testified that Harris was positioned on the north

side of Holliman at the time of the shooting, which was behind Holliman to the right. Officer

Michael Dannar with the BPD testified that he collected the hard drive from the DVR system

at Danny’s Store on March 30, 2019.

       Harris testified that he had taken his two-year-old son to Danny’s Store to get

something to eat. Harris testified that he and Renaldre exchanged greetings when Renaldre

arrived at the store, and Renaldre told Harris that he had come to retrieve his cell phone

from the store. Harris further testified that he heard gunshots while he was feeding his son

in his car and looked up to see Renaldre and Holliman firing at each other. Harris also

testified that he thought the altercation between Renaldre and Holliman had ended once

Holliman fled the scene, but Harris became worried about Renaldre’s safety when he saw

Holliman run back toward the store. Harris testified that he then blacked out and started

shooting in Holliman’s direction with his 9mm firearm, and that he did not intend to shoot

or kill Holliman, but merely shot in his direction to scare Holliman because he wanted to

protect Renaldre. Harris testified that he did not know who shot Holliman, because even

though he never saw anyone else in the area, he heard other gunshots. Harris also testified

that he did not know Holliman, nor had he ever seen him before.

       After the State rested, Harris moved for a directed verdict. In his motion, Harris

contended that the State had neither proved that he had acted purposely nor that he had

                                             7
caused Holliman’s death. Specifically, Harris asserted that the evidence and testimony at trial

showed that the gunshot that caused Holliman’s death came from the opposite direction of

where Harris was standing, and thus, he could not have been responsible for Holliman’s

death. At the close of evidence, Harris renewed his motion for a directed verdict. The circuit

court denied both motions.

       During the State’s closing argument, the prosecutor said, “I submit to you everything

that we told you in our opening we, in fact, have showed you . . . [t]he Defense told you a lot

of things that they didn’t prove to you, they didn’t give you evidence of.” Harris did not

object. Instead, in Harris’s closing argument, he stated, “I don’t have to prove the case. So

for the Prosecution to say that [Harris] didn’t stand up here and prove [his] case. That’s

actually not the law and inappropriate because I don’t have to do that. What I have to show

is that they didn’t put on any evidence.” The case was then sent to the jury.

       Prior to jury deliberations, the jury instruction for Harris’s defense of justification was

in controversy. Harris first argued that, for purposes of instructing the jury, the Arkansas

“Stand Your Ground” law that became effective on July 28, 2021, should be applied

retroactively to these facts because it is procedural in nature. See Act 250 of 2021. In the

alternative, Harris argued that the language regarding the duty to retreat should not have

been included in the instruction for defense of others because the statute imposed a duty to

retreat only in situations involving self-defense. The circuit court declined to modify the AMI

Crim. 2d 705 jury instruction.

                                                8
       On September 16, 2021, Harris was convicted and sentenced as described above. On

October 4, Harris filed his second amended motion for a new trial and motion for judgment

notwithstanding the verdict pursuant to Rule 33.3 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal

Procedure. On October 6, a hearing was held on Harris’s motion. Harris alleged juror

misconduct had occurred and that he was entitled to a new trial, contending that Juror

Hawkins informed Harris after the trial had concluded that, during deliberations, a bailiff

had told another juror that Renaldre received a life sentence for his role in the events

surrounding Holliman’s murder. In accordance with Rule 606(b) of the Arkansas Rules of

Evidence,4 the circuit court held a hearing and allowed limited testimony to determine

whether any extraneous information had been brought to the attention of the jury.

       The testimony from the hearing was as follows. Juror Hawkins testified that one of

two possible jurors announced to the jury room that Renaldre had received a life sentence,

and asked, “[H]ow could we give [Harris] anything less?” However, Juror Hawkins could not

positively identify the juror responsible. Juror Hawkins further testified that although she

did not know who gave the juror this information, she heard that the information came

from a bailiff. The bailiff, Deputy Jimmy Brooks, testified that he was not approached by any

jurors, and he did not provide information to any jurors regarding Renaldre’s sentence. Juror

       4
        Rule 606(b) states that, “[u]pon an inquiry into the validity of a verdict or indictment,
a juror may not testify as to any matter or statement occurring during the course of the jury’s
deliberations . . . but a juror may testify on the questions whether extraneous prejudicial information
was improperly brought to the jury’s attention or whether any outside influence was improperly
brought to bear upon any juror.” (Emphasis added.)

                                                  9
Luttrell testified that he heard a comment about Renaldre’s sentence after the jury had

already reached a decision, but he did not know who made the comment. Juror Luttrell

testified further that he could not recall what the comment was, because “it wasn’t pertinent

to this case.” Juror Herron testified that someone mentioned Renaldre’s sentence at some

point before the jury had made its decision, but he did not know who mentioned it or what

exactly was said. Juror Herron testified further that the bailiff never approached him with

information about Renaldre’s sentence. Juror Perkins, when asked if Renaldre’s sentence

came to his attention during trial, responded, “Well, no, not really.” Juror Perkins testified

further that he thought he heard something about Renaldre during the course of the trial

but did not recall details. Based on the above testimony, the circuit court found that there

was no jury misconduct because it appeared that the jurors were referring to testimony about

Renaldre from Harris’s trial.

       Also relevant to this appeal, at the hearing on the motion for new trial, Harris argued

that the model jury instruction that was submitted to the jury, AMI Crim. 2d 705, was

improper because it included language about the duty to retreat. According to Harris,

Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-607 (Supp. 2019), which the instruction is modeled

after, attaches a duty to retreat only to self-defense and not to defense of others. The circuit

court rejected this argument, holding that the jury instruction correctly stated the law in

effect at the time of the murder, and that it is for the jury to decide whether the justification

applied under the facts of this case.

                                               10
       Finally, Harris argued that the State’s comments during its closing argument were an

attempt to shift the burden of proof to Harris and grounds for a mistrial. Specifically, Harris

asserted that, although a contemporaneous objection was not made during the State’s closing

argument, an exception to the contemporaneous-objection rule applies and requires the

court to consider the issue. The circuit court denied Harris’s motion.

       This timely appeal followed.

                                       II. Points on Appeal

                                A. Sufficiency of the Evidence

       For his first point on appeal, Harris argues that the circuit court erred when it denied

his motion for a directed verdict. On appeal, a motion for directed verdict is treated as a

challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Reynolds v. State, 2016 Ark. 214, 492 S.W.3d

491. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the

light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict.

Edmond v. State, 351 Ark. 495, 95 S.W.3d 789 (2003). We will affirm a conviction if

substantial evidence exists to support it. Id. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient

force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or

the other, without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Dortch v. State, 2018 Ark. 135, at

5, 544 S.W.3d 518, 522. This court does not weigh the evidence presented at trial or assess

the credibility of the witnesses, because those are matters for the fact-finder. Id. 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. Id. Further, circumstantial evidence may

                                               11
provide a basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant’s guilt

and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Edmond, 351 Ark. 495, 95 S.W.3d

789. Whether the evidence excludes every other hypothesis is left to the jury to decide.

Carmichael v. State, 340 Ark. 598, 12 S.W.3d 225 (2000).

         With these standards in mind, we turn to Harris’s first point on appeal. Harris was

convicted of first-degree murder. Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-10-

102(a)(2), 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. § 5-10-

102(a)(2) (Supp. 2021). Further, “[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). Finally,

“[c]ausation may be found when the result would not have occurred but for the conduct of

the defendant operating either alone or concurrently with another cause unless: (1) [t]he

concurrent cause was clearly sufficient to produce the result; and (2) [t]he conduct of the

defendant was clearly insufficient to produce the result.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-205 (Repl.

2013).

         Harris contends that the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to support the

verdict because it did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Harris caused Holliman’s

death. Harris alleges that Dr. Erickson’s testimony that the fatal gunshot entered the left side

of Holliman’s neck and Detective Stewart’s testimony that Harris was standing to the right

of Holliman undermines the verdict. The State responds that the surveillance-video footage

                                               12
from Danny’s Store clearly shows Harris aim his firearm toward Holliman and fire several

shots, and Holliman immediately collapses to the ground. The State further responds that

there is sufficient evidence to corroborate the surveillance-video footage because there were

seven 9mm shell casings found on the ground where Harris was standing in the video, Harris

admitted that he used a 9mm firearm, and Britton’s testimony established that the bullet

fragment found under Holliman’s body was in the .38-caliber class, which includes 9mm

ammunition. We agree.

       Here, in the record before us, the surveillance-video footage demonstrates that Harris

shot Holliman from behind, thereby causing Holliman’s death. Dr. Erickson testified that

Holliman’s official cause of death was multiple gunshot wounds and that the gunshots

Holliman sustained came from behind Holliman and traveled both left to right and right to

left. The surveillance-video footage is consistent with the testimony showing Harris firing at

Holliman, with Holliman’s left side exposed to Harris. Further, Harris’s own testimony

supports his conviction as he testified that he shot toward Holliman several times using a

9mm firearm. Detective Grimes testified that a collection of seven 9mm shell casings was

found at the scene. The surveillance-video footage also demonstrates that Harris’s car was

parked near this group of 9mm shell casings at the time of the shooting. State crime-lab

examiner Deborah Britton testified that all seven 9mm shell casings recovered from the scene

were fired from the same firearm. Britton testified further that the bullet fragment found

under Holliman’s body was in the .38-caliber class and that 9mm firearm ammunition is

included within the .38-caliber class. When considering this evidence in the light most

                                             13
favorable to the State, we find that there was substantial evidence to support Harris’s first-

degree-murder conviction. Therefore, the circuit court did not err in denying Harris’s motion

for directed verdict.

                             B. Admission of Surveillance Videos

       For his second point on appeal, Harris contends that the circuit court abused its

discretion when it admitted the surveillance videos from Danny’s Store that Captain Ward

and Detective Stewart recorded with their BPD-issued cell phones. Circuit courts have broad

discretion in deciding evidentiary issues, and their rulings on the admissibility of evidence

are not reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. Halliburton v. State, 2020 Ark. 101,

23, 594 S.W.3d 856, 870. Abuse of discretion is a high threshold that does not simply

require error in the trial court’s decision, but requires that the trial court act improvidently,

thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. Arnold v. State, 2022 Ark. 191, at 7, 653 S.W.3d

781, 787. Further, we will not reverse unless the appellant demonstrates that he was

prejudiced by the evidentiary ruling. Collins v. State, 2019 Ark. 110, 5, 571 S.W.3d 469, 471–

72.

                                          1. Duplicates

       Harris first contends that the surveillance videos were not properly admitted pursuant

to Rules 1002 and 1003 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence because the videos were neither

originals nor proper duplicates. The State responds that the videos were properly admitted

as duplicates of the original surveillance video footage because, under Rule 1001, a duplicate

can be produced by means of photography. The State contends that, by statutory definition,

                                               14
“photograph” includes videos, and although “photography” is not likewise defined in the

applicable sections of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence, videography is an analogous process

that produces a proper duplicate. The State further responds that there was no evidence that

the surveillance-video footage was altered in any way. We agree.

       Generally, “to prove the content of a writing, recording, or photograph, the original

writing, recording, or photograph is required.” Ark. R. Evid. 1002. However, “a duplicate is

admissible to the same extent as an original unless (1) a genuine question is raised as to the

authenticity or continuing effectiveness of the original or (2) in the circumstances it would

be unfair to admit the duplicate in lieu of the original.” Ark. R. Evid. 1003. “Photograph”

includes “video tapes.” Ark. R. Evid. 1001(2). A duplicate “is a counterpart produced by the

same impression as the original, or from the same matrix, or by means of photography,

including enlargements and miniatures, or by mechanical or electronic re-recording, or by

chemical reproduction, or by other equivalent techniques which accurately reproduce the

original.” Ark. R. Evid. 1001(4).

       Here, Captain Ward and Detective Stewart used their BPD-issued cell phones to

record the surveillance video footage at Danny’s Store in real time as they observed the

monitors. As discussed above, a duplicate can be a counterpart produced by means of

photography or other equivalent techniques that accurately reproduce the original.

Therefore, a video recording that captures an original video is a proper duplicate under the

Arkansas Rules of Evidence. Further, there is no evidence in the record to suggest that the

surveillance-video footage had been tampered with. Instead, Anaam testified that the

                                             15
surveillance cameras were running properly, and he did not witness anyone tampering with

the DVR system. He testified further that because he did not know how to obtain the original

video from the DVR system, he provided law enforcement with the entire DVR system.

However, the original surveillance-video footage was unavailable because the crime lab was

unable to extract any of the original footage. Both Captain Ward and Detective Stewart

testified that the videos accurately depicted the footage, and neither the videos nor the DVR

system had been tampered with.

       On this basis, we hold that the videos are proper duplicates in accordance with Rule

1003 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence that fairly and accurately represent the original

surveillance recordings and affirm the circuit court.

                                      2. Unfair prejudice

       Harris next asserts that the probative value of the surveillance-video footage was

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice under Rule 403 of the Arkansas

Rules of Evidence, because the videos are misleading in light of the testimony and physical

evidence presented at trial. Specifically, Harris contends that the videos lack probative value

because the videos show only three shooters while Britton’s testimony allegedly showed that

there were four firearms used in the shooting. Further, Harris asserts that, while testimony

at trial establishes that the fatal gunshot came from the left, the video shows Harris shooting

Holliman from the right. In sum, Harris contends that based on these inconsistencies, the

videos unfairly prejudiced Harris.

                                              16
       Relying on Lard v. State, 2014 Ark. 1, 431 S.W.3d 249, and Williams v. State, 374 Ark.

282, 287 S.W.3d 559 (2008), the State responds that the probative value of the surveillance-

camera footage is immense, as the videos provide clear evidence of every essential element of

the charged crime. The State further responds that there was no risk of unfair prejudice or

jury confusion in admitting these videos because the footage does not conflict with the

testimony at trial. We agree.

       Pursuant to Rule 401, evidence is relevant when it has “any tendency to make the

existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable

or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” Ark. R. Evid. 401. However,

“[a]lthough relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially

outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the issues, or misleading the jury,

or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless presentation of cumulative

evidence.” Ark. R. Evid. 403. Therefore, a circuit court “may refuse to admit evidence that

is unfairly prejudicial to the defendant, even if it might be relevant.” Lard, 2014 Ark. 1, at 7,

431 S.W.3d at 258. We have observed that “evidence offered by the State is often likely to

be prejudicial to the accused, but the evidence should not be excluded unless the accused

can show that it lacks probative value in view of the risk of unfair prejudice.” Id.

       In Lard, Lard challenged the admissibility of video evidence of the shooting of the

victim as recorded by police-cruiser dash cameras. Id. at 19, 431 S.W.3d at 264. We held that

the probative value of video recordings substantially outweighed the danger of unfair

prejudice because “[a]lthough there were witnesses to the events, the recordings represent an

                                               17
objective portrayal of what occurred . . . and served both to corroborate and to explain the

eyewitnesses’ testimony . . . [b]ecause the incident unfolded so quickly, showing the events

as they transpired from different perspectives and at slowed speeds allowed the actions of all

involved to be clarified and placed in context.” Id. at 21, 431 S.W.3d at 265. In Williams,

Williams challenged the admissibility of video evidence depicting him engaging children in

sexually explicit conduct. 374 Ark. at 289, 287 S.W.3d at 565. Likewise, we affirmed the

circuit court’s determination that the probative value of the video footage was not

substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because “[t]he State is entitled to

prove its case as conclusively as it can . . . [and] had the burden of proving the elements of

all of the charges against Williams.” Id. at 291, 287 S.W.3d at 566.

         As in Lard and Williams, we conclude that the probative value of the surveillance-

video footage introduced at Harris’s trial substantially outweighed the danger of unfair

prejudice. Here, the surveillance-video footage provided evidence of the murder and the

parties involved from multiple angles. Further, the State used the video as evidence to prove

the elements of first-degree murder. Based on our discussion above, we hold that the circuit

court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the surveillance videos and affirm the circuit

court.

                                     C. Jury Instructions

         For his third point on appeal, Harris contends that the circuit court erred when it

submitted jury instruction AMI Crim. 2d 705 to the jury. First, Harris asserts that the circuit

court should have applied Act 250 retroactively in its instruction to the jury regarding the

                                              18
defense of justification because, although the Act did not expressly state that it should apply

retroactively, the Act was procedural in nature. In the alternative, Harris argues that the

language regarding the duty to retreat included in AMI Crim. 2d 705 was erroneous. The

State responds that Harris did not properly preserve the issues related to the jury instructions

because Harris proffered no jury instructions into the record. We agree.

       A circuit court’s ruling on whether to submit a jury instruction will not be reversed

absent an abuse of discretion. Kinsey v. State, 2016 Ark. 393, at 9, 503 S.W.3d 772, 778.

Further, we have held that “[i]t is the appellant’s duty to present to this court a record

sufficient to show that the circuit judge erred below. To preserve an objection to an

instruction for appeal, the appellant must make a proffer of the proposed instruction to the

judge. That proffered instruction must then be included in the record . . . to enable the

appellate court to consider it. An instruction that is not contained in the record is not

preserved and will not be addressed on appeal.” Robertson v. State, 2009 Ark. 430, at 3, 347

S.W.3d 460, 462 (internal citations omitted).

       Here, because Harris failed to proffer proposed instructions, the issue is not preserved

for our review. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court.

                                     D. Jury Misconduct

              For his fourth point on appeal, Harris asserts, as he did in his motion for a

new trial, that jury misconduct deprived him of a fair trial.

       “The decision whether to grant a new trial is left to the sound discretion of the trial

court, and it is not reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion or manifest prejudice to

                                              19
the complaining party.” McIntosh v. State, 340 Ark. 34, 41, 8 S.W.3d 506, 510 (2000)

(internal citations omitted). “A trial court’s factual determination on a motion for a new trial

will not be reversed unless clearly erroneous.” State v. Cherry, 341 Ark. 924, 928, 20 S.W.3d

354, 357 (2000). A finding is clearly erroneous when, although there is evidence to support

it, the appellate court after reviewing the entire evidence is left with the definite and firm

conviction that a mistake has been committed. Arnold, 2022 Ark. 191, at 4, 653 S.W.3d at

786.

       Harris contends that he was deprived of a fair trial because the jury was told that

Renaldre received a life sentence as a result of the same incident. Relying on Cherry, Harris

asserts that it is reasonable to infer that knowledge of Renaldre’s guilt could have swayed

members of the jury to likewise find Harris guilty or impose a life sentence. The State

responds that the circuit court’s denial of Harris’s motion for a new trial based on juror

misconduct was not an abuse of discretion. We agree.

       “The party moving for a new trial bears the burden of proving, first, that juror

misconduct occurred, and second, that there was a reasonable probability of resulting

prejudice.” Taffner v. State, 2018 Ark. 99, at 14, 541 S.W.3d 430, 438. “[T]his court has

repeatedly held that the issue of witness credibility is for the trial judge to weigh and assess.

Accordingly, this court will defer to the superior position of the trial court to evaluate the

credibility of witnesses.” Cherry, 341 Ark. at 931, 20 S.W.3d at 358 (internal citations

omitted).

                                               20
       We are unpersuaded by Harris’s reliance on Cherry. In Cherry, Cherry did not assert

that the jury was presented with extraneous information after formal deliberations had

begun; rather, the issue involved an allegation that jurors discussed the case amongst

themselves throughout the trial. Id. at 929, 20 S.W.3d at 357. Further, in Cherry, jurors

admitted discussing the facts of the case, as well as the evidence, prior to formal deliberations,

and the circuit court therefore made a finding of prejudice because of those premature

discussions. Id. at 927–33, 20 S.W.3d at 356–60. Here, given that the testimony was related

to commentary made amongst the jurors during formal jury deliberations, the circuit court

limited the scope of the posttrial hearing to first determine whether extraneous information

had been brought to the jury’s attention before making a determination about prejudice.

The circuit court ultimately did not reach the issue of prejudice as it did in Cherry because it

made a credibility determination that no extraneous information had been presented to the

jury in the first place. Accordingly, Cherry is not on point.

       Based on our review of the record before us, the circuit court did not clearly err in

making a credibility determination upon hearing the testimony of the jurors and the bailiff

and therefore did not abuse its discretion by denying Harris’s motion for a new trial. The

circuit court considered testimony from witnesses to determine whether juror misconduct

had occurred during jury deliberations. The bailiff denied providing information about

Renaldre’s sentence to any jurors, and the testimony of the jurors was inconclusive as to

when the alleged comment was made, who made the alleged comment, and what

information was shared with the jury. Therefore, we affirm the circuit court.

                                               21
                                 E. Prosecutorial Misconduct

       For his final point on appeal, Harris contends that the State’s remarks during closing

arguments rose to the level of prosecutorial misconduct and that the circuit court did not

properly intervene. Specifically, Harris asserts that the State attempted to shift the burden of

proof by stating that “[t]he Defense told you a lot of things that they didn’t prove to you,

they didn’t give you evidence of.” Harris concedes that he did not make a contemporaneous

objection at trial and therefore that this issue is not preserved for our review. However, Harris

asserts that the third exception identified in Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366

(1980), requires us to undertake this review.

       The State responds that the third Wicks exception does not apply to the present case

because the exception is applied very narrowly. Relying on Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark.

222, 408 S.W.3d 55, the State points out that we have previously refused to apply the

exception to potential prosecutorial errors during closing arguments. We agree with the State

that the third Wicks exception does not apply.

       We have recognized four narrow exceptions to the contemporaneous-objection rule

that are to be rarely applied, commonly referred to as the Wicks exceptions. Anderson v. State,

353 Ark. 384, 398, 108 S.W.3d 592, 599 (2003). These exceptions are applied “when (1) a

trial court, in a death-penalty case, fails to bring to the jury’s attention a matter essential to

its consideration of the death penalty itself; (2) a trial court errs at a time when defense

counsel has no knowledge of the error and thus no opportunity to object; (3) a trial court

should intervene on its own motion to correct a serious error; and (4) the admission or

                                                22
exclusion of evidence affects a defendant’s substantial rights.” Bradley v. State, 2013 Ark. 58,

at 15, 426 S.W.3d 363, 372. We have held that the third Wicks exception should be applied

“when the error is so flagrant and so highly prejudicial in character as to make it the duty of

the court on its own motion to have instructed the jury correctly.” Anderson, 353 Ark. 395,

108 S.W.3d at 599.

       Here, a review of the record demonstrates that the third Wicks exception does not

apply to Harris’s case, and we affirm the circuit court.

                                    III. Rule 4-3(a) Review

       Pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(a), the record has been reviewed for

all objections, motions, and requests that were decided adversely to Harris, and no

prejudicial error was found.

       Affirmed.

       Omar F. Greene; and Law Office of Fraser & Furrer, PLLC, by: Maryann Furrer, for

appellant.

       Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen.; and Walker K.

Hawkins, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                              23