Court Opinion

ID: 9778942
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-29 21:27:02.626158+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:33:16.250382
License: Public Domain

Darrell Hickman, Justice. The appellant was convicted of first degree murder and sentenced to life in prison. On appeal, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the validity of a vehicular search. We affirm his conviction. On Monday, May 25, 1987, Gary Sturdivant was found murdered in his mobile home near Malvern. He was found with his hands and feet tied. He had suffered a blow to his head, but death was by strangulation. Investigating officers determined that several items were missing from the trailer, including a VCR, stereo speakers, billfold, Visa card, camera, watch and rifle. The victim’s car, a 1986 Toronado Oldsmobile, was also missing. There was no sign of forced entry. The last person to see Sturdivant alive was his friend, Charles Brooks. The two men had been drinking on the evening of Saturday, May 23. They had been to Garland County to buy liquor and had visited several people’s houses before Sturdivant dropped Brooks off at Brooks’ home around midnight. A neighbor of Sturdivant’s, Eddie Arrivete, saw the Oldsmobile arrive at Sturdivant’s trailer between 11 p.m. and midnight that night. The car, which he assumed was driven by Sturdivant, was followed by a truck with three men in it. The occupants of both vehicles entered the trailer. Arrivete noticed that by 9 a.m. Sunday morning, the vehicles were gone. The men in the truck have never been identified. Sturdivant’s body was discovered the following day. The medical examiner determined the time of death was between 3 a.m. and 4 a.m. Sunday. The appellant was never identified as being in Sturdivant’s home or in his company, but he was seen near Malvern both before and after the murder occurred. Witnesses saw him on Saturday between 3 p.m. and 4 p.m. at a convenience store off Interstate 30 near Malvern. Later that night, he was seen hitchhiking on the Interstate near the Malvern exit between 9 p.m. and 10:15 p.m. Witnesses said he was carrying a duffle bag. The appellant was next seen between 4 a.m. and 5 a.m. on Sunday driving the victim’s car west on Interstate 30 near Prescott. According to a husband and wife truck driving team, Don and Sandra Misc., he was driving “terribly fast” and nearly ran them off the road. They blinked their lights at him and he pulled into a rest area, where he parked the car on the sidewalk. They identified the car as the Oldsmobile Toronado and said it had Arkansas plates. Don Misc. spoke with the appellant and, assuming he was drunk, told him to stay off the road. The appellant explained that he was an electrician living in Texarkana, that he had been to a friend’s funeral in Little Rock, and was on his way to Dallas. He said he had had too much to drink after the funeral, but Misc. smelled no alcohol on his breath. Misc. noticed a pillow covering the butt end of a rifle in the back seat of the car and told the appellant, “you’d better get that thing out in the open, being as the cops will get you for concealed weapons.” Hill apparently continued on to Dallas and was arrested there on May 29. Dallas police officers received information that a black man and a white man were at a convenience store attempting to sell stolen goods. Three non-uniformed officers arrived at the scene. Officer David Clark saw the appellant sitting in the Oldsmobile, approached him, and asked for identification. Hill could not produce any identification or any insurance papers on the car. He told the officer his name was David Patrick, and that he had bought the car from a man named Gary. When he was asked a second time, he said his name was Ashley Patrick Whitley. The vehicle had a Texas license plate and Officer Clark ran a check on the vehicle. It showed the tags belonged on a different car. Officer Clark asked for permission to look in the trunk and Hill agreed. The trunk contained several items, including a checkbook and checks belonging to Gary Sturdivant, an Arkansas license plate, items of clothing, and a duffle bag like the one Hill had been seen with while hitchhiking. Seeing the papers, he asked about Gary Sturdivant and Hill said, “yeah, that’s the man I bought the car from.” Clark was curious why a man would sell his car and leave his checkbook and clothing in it and questioned the appellant further. He was then given a third name, Johnny Lee Hill. The officer ran a check on the Arkansas license plate and discovered the vehicle was connected with a murder investigation. Hill was arrested and taken to the police station where he told yet another story about the car. He said he really did not buy it from a man named Gary, but the car was given to him by a man named Clyde at one of the missions in Dallas. Hill was charged with capital felony murder. At trial, several state crime lab experts testified that no hairs, fingerprints or body fluids found at the victim’s trailer could be matched conclusively to Hill. It was discovered that the victim’s Visa card had been used five times on Sunday May 24 between Arkadelphia and Dallas. It was used the first time at 4:19 a.m. at a convenience store at the Caddo Valley interstate exit near Arkadelphia, about 25 miles south of Malvern. It was later used in Texarkana, Rockwall, Texas, and twice in Dallas. Each time, the receipt was signed “Stevie Sturdivant.” A crime lab analyst could not match the handwriting on the receipts to the appellant, but she stated that the sample submitted by the appellant showed evidence of deception. At the close of the state’s evidence, the appellant moved for a directed verdict, claiming there was not enough direct or circumstantial evidence for the jury to conclude he had committed the crime. The motion was denied.  A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Gardner v. State, 296 Ark. 41, 754 S.W. 2d 518 (1988).We will affirm the verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial evidence. Still v. State, 294 Ark. 117, 740 S.W.2d 926 (1987). Circumstantial evidence must be consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. It will not rise to the level of substantial evidence if it leaves the jury only to speculation and conjecture in choosing between two equally reasonable conclusions and merely gives rise to suspicion. Surridge v. State, 279 Ark. 183, 650 S.W.2d 561 (1983). We have affirmed murder convictions based entirely on circumstantial evidence. See Bennett v. State, 297 Ark. 115, 759 S.W.2d 799 (1988); Still v. State, supra. The question here is, does the proof satisfy the test for substantial evidence? Hill was seen fleeing the area in what could have been minutes after the victim’s time of death. His manner of driving and his conduct described by the Misc.s are certainly consistent with flight from a crime, a factor which the jury may consider as evidence of guilt. Jones v. State, 282 Ark. 56, 665 S.W.2d 876 (1984).  Possession of property reported missing from the victim’s home may be considered evidence of guilt. See Gardner v. State, supra. The jury could have concluded Hill was in possession of Sturdivant’s Visa card and his rifle and that he took those items from Sturdivant’s trailer. The dissent states there is nothing to show the Visa card was in the trailer rather than in the car. In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence and all its reasonable inferences are viewed most favorably to the appellee. Blaney v. State, 280 Ark. 253, 657 S.W.2d 531 (1983). The jury could have concluded the card was in Sturdivant’s billfold, which was among the many items reported missing from the trailer. That would be a fair interpretation of the evidence. Members of the jury may use common knowledge and experience in evaluating the evidence. Chisum v. State, 213 Ark. 1, 616 S.W.2d 728 (1981).  Hill’s lies to the Misc.s and the Dallas police were manifold, which could lead the jury to conclude he wished to hide his identity, actions and whereabouts. False, improbable and contradictory statements to explain suspicious circumstances may be considered by the jury in determining guilt. Dix v. State, 290 Ark. 28, 715 S.W.2d 879 (1986).  If Hill did not kill Sturdivant or participate in his murder, why was Sturdivant’s vehicle in his possession? One possibility is that he found it on the freeway, abandoned. He could have stolen it from Sturdivant’s trailer or from somewhere else. He could have been given the vehicle by Sturdivant’s killer. But considering Hill’s flight from the crime, the total circumstantial evidence, and his false explanations, these conclusions are not equally as reasonable as the conclusion that Hill either murdered or participated in the murder of Gary Sturdivant. We conclude the evidence is substantial and the jury did not have to resort to speculation to reach its verdict.  The other issue concerns the validity of Hill’s consent to allow the vehicle to be searched by the Dallas police. The appellant has presented no argument that he should have standing to question the search of a vehicle owned by another person. Therefore, we find no unlawful search or seizure. See Tippitt v. State, 294 Ark. 342, 742 S. W.2d 931 (1988). See also Sanborn v. State, 251 Ga. 159, 304 S.E.2d 377 (1983) (no standing to question search of a stolen car.) We have examined the record for other errors as we are required to do under Ark. Sup. Ct. Rule 11(f) and finding none, affirm the judgment. Affirmed. Purtle, Dudley and Newbern, JJ., dissent.