Court Opinion

ID: 9382960
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-29 14:02:40.899654+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:42.557753
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 171
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                      DIVISION III
                                      No. CR-22-540

 JAMES MATHIS RAPER                            Opinion Delivered March   29, 2023
                               APPELLANT
                                               APPEAL FROM THE DREW
                                               COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
 V.                                            [NO. 22CR-21-21]

 STATE OF ARKANSAS                        HONORABLE CREWS PURYEAR,
                                 APPELLEE JUDGE

                                               AFFIRMED

                                BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

       A Drew County jury convicted appellant James Mathis Raper of residential burglary

and theft of property, and he was sentenced to five years’ imprisonment. He argues on appeal

that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict as to residential

burglary because he did not have the purpose to commit theft.1 We affirm his conviction.

                                       I. Background

       Shyron Robinson testified that on the night of December 20, 2020, he saw a white

truck parked at the end of the driveway to his father’s former residence. He said that the

residence, owned by Charles Robinson, was fully furnished and used as a “man cave”—it

       1
        Raper does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction
for theft of property, which was reduced to a misdemeanor because the value of the pinball
machines was not established.
contained a pool table, two pinball machines, a slot machine, a dart board, and TVs. Shyron

confronted two men, Raper and Jeff Mann, the truck’s owner, at the man-cave residence and

saw Charles’s two pinball machines in the back of the truck. Shyron testified that Raper was

“aggressive” and claimed to have purchased the pinball machines. He said that Raper also

said that he had a receipt but did not produce it. Shyron called his father, who arrived on

the scene but did not recognize Raper or Mann, so Shyron called the police. The Robinsons

testified that they do not know a man named Patrick Robinson.

       The State also called both a criminal investigator and a deputy with the Drew County

Sheriff’s Office to testify, along with William Jones, the owner of a pawn shop. Jones testified

that he knows Raper and that Raper had sold him a slot machine on December 15, which

Charles subsequently identified as belonging to him. After the State rested, the trial court

denied Raper’s motion as to residential burglary. The defense then presented testimony from

Raper and his wife, Carrie.

       Raper and Carrie testified that they have a business in which they buy and sell used

items. They claimed that on December 11, they encountered a man sitting outside of a deli

with a slot machine, which he sold to them for $50. They testified that the man, who had

said his name was Patrick Robinson, showed Raper photos on his phone of two pinball

machines that he also wanted to sell. The photos depicted the pinball machines sitting beside

the slot machine that they had just purchased. Raper testified that he bought the pinball

machines and that the man had told him the pinball machines were located on the back

porch of an empty residence, that the door was open, and that Raper needed to remove them

                                               2
by December 20. Raper said that he had a telephone number for Patrick Robinson but had

since lost it. At trial, Raper claimed that he had foolishly gotten into Mann’s truck without

his receipt book, which was kept in his vehicle. Raper did not produce the receipt until the

Thursday before trial. He claimed to have been in prison and said that his wife did not have

access to his safe where the receipt was kept. Raper renewed his directed-verdict motion on

residential burglary, and it was again denied. The jury then found Raper guilty of residential

burglary and misdemeanor theft of property, and he was sentenced to serve five years in

prison.

                                      II. Standard of Review

          On appeal, we treat a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of

the evidence. Milner v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 546. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency

of the evidence, this court determines whether the verdict is supported by substantial

evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to

compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. On appeal, we

review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence

that supports the verdict. Id.

          Circumstantial evidence is evidence of circumstances from which a fact may be

inferred. Wright v. State, 2022 Ark. 103, 644 S.W.3d 236. Circumstantial evidence may

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

and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Id. Whether the evidence excludes

every other hypothesis is left to the jury to decide. Id. Further, the credibility of witnesses is

                                                3
an issue for the jury, not the court; 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.

                                           III. Discussion

       A person commits residential burglary if he enters or remains unlawfully in a

residential occupiable structure of another person with the purpose of committing in the

residential occupiable structure any offense punishable by imprisonment. Ark. Code Ann. §

5-39-201(a)(1) (Repl. 2013). A criminal defendant’s intent or state of mind is seldom capable

of proof by direct evidence and must usually be inferred from the circumstances of the crime.

Wright, supra. Because intent cannot be proved by direct evidence, the jurors can draw upon

their common knowledge and experience to infer it from the circumstances. Id.

       Raper contends that the State failed to prove that he entered the man-cave residence

with the intent to commit theft. He argues that the evidence below revealed the following:

               The facts show that [Raper] removed property from a residence under the
       belief that he had lawfully acquired the items he was removing. He testified that he
       had a registered Arkansas corporation that was formed to buy and sell used items. He
       purchased several items from a man who had pictures of the items on his phone and
       had knowledge of where they were to be found. [Raper] paid for the items. He then
       went to the residence in daylight to retrieve the items that he had previously
       purchased. When confronted by the actual owners, he returned the items with no
       argument, but was arrested. This is the behavior of an innocent man.

       Raper argues that he took the pinball machines under an honest belief that he was

the owner and was authorized to remove the property. Raper argues that there were two

equally plausible explanations for his possession of the pinball machines and that the

presumption of innocence must prevail.

                                                  4
       The State cites Gray v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 572, in which we affirmed the appellant’s

conviction for theft of property because the jury was not required to believe the appellant’s

explanation that he had taken a trailer from a third party who had represented himself as

the true owner of the property. We said that “[t]he unexplained, unsatisfactory, or

improbable explanation for possession of recently stolen property may be considered as

evidence of guilt of theft of property.” Id. at 4. The State asserts that Raper’s possession of

the two pinball machines belonging to Charles Robinson was “unexplained”; however, his

possession was not unexplained as much as his explanation was improbable.

       Possession of recently stolen property is prima facie evidence of guilt of burglary by

the party in whose possession the property is found unless it is satisfactorily accounted for

to the jury. Owens v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 353, 525 S.W.3d 480. The jury was not required

to believe Raper’s account of events. The jury could infer from the unlikely circumstances—

entering a residence unescorted to retrieve items purchased sight unseen and without a

receipt—that Raper intended to commit theft when he entered the man-cave residence. We

hold that there is substantial evidence to support Raper’s conviction for residential burglary.

       Affirmed.

       GRUBER and BROWN, JJ., agree.

       Potts Law Office, by: Gary W. Potts, for appellant.

       Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Clayton P. Orr, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                               5