Anton Grant v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

OLLY NEAL, JUDGE

DIVISION I CACR00-2

SEPTEMBER 6, 2000

ANTON GRANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI

APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[CR99-163]

v.

HONORABLE DAVID BOGARD,

STATE OF ARKANSAS CIRCUIT JUDGE

APPELLEE

AFFIRMED

Appellant Anton Grant appeals the judgment of the Pulaski County Circuit Court convicting him of battery in the first degree and sentencing him to twelve years imprisonment. Mr. Grant contends the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. Specifically, appellant argues the State did not establish that he had the required culpable mental state. We disagree and affirm.

On July 1, 1998, Kimeu Scott was taking his son to his girlfriend's house. When Mr. Scott stepped out of his car, appellant's brother, Joe Grant, approached, pulled a gun, and said "What's up now?" Apparently, Joe Grant's comment referenced a recent fight between Mr. Scott and appellant. A confrontation ensued in which Mr. Scott and Joe Grant fought over the gun. As the struggle continued, appellant approached Mr. Scott from the rear and fired a single shot. Mr. Scott felt his left buttock and the back of his left leg get warm with blood and turned around in time to see appellant running away with a firearm in his hand. Appellant admitted firing a shot in the direction of Mr. Scott but testified that his sole purpose in firing the shot was to end the confrontation between Mr. Scott and appellant's brother.

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and sustain the conviction if there is substantial evidence to support it. Harmon v. State, 340 Ark. 18, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2000). Substantial evidence is that evidence that is forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture. Id. In determining whether there is substantial evidence, we consider only the evidence that tends to support the verdict. Johnson v. State, 337 Ark. 196, 987 S.W.2d 694 (1999). We do not weigh the evidence presented at trial, as that is the province of the factfinder. Freeman v. State, 331 Ark. 130, 959 S.W.2d 400 (1998). Where, as is the case here, the trial is before the bench, the trial judge sits as factfinder. Gray v. State, 311 Ark. 209, 843 S.W.2d 315 (1992).

A person commits battery in the first degree if "[w]ith the purpose of causing physical injury to another person he causes physical injury to any person by means of a firearm." Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-201(a)(7) (Repl. 1997). "A person acts purposely with respect to his conduct or a result thereof when it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result." Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202(1) (Repl. 1997). Intent can rarely be proved by direct evidence and must usually be inferred from the circumstances of the case. Davis v. State 317 Ark. 592, 879 S.W.2d 439 (1994).

The evidence in the present case reveals that the victim of the shooting beat up appellant a few days prior to the shooting. The evidence also reveals that both appellant and his brother had guns and that appellant's brother approached the victim at the victim's girlfriend's home. Finally, appellant admitted to firing a shot at the victim. Appellant's contention that his sole purpose in firing the shot was to end the confrontation was argued to and rejected by the trial court. The trial court expressed its belief that appellant and his brother approached the victim seeking revenge. The court believed appellant was his brother's back-up, and appellant shot the victim when appellant's brother failed to do so. Based on the evidence we cannot say the trial court's ruling was not supported by substantial evidence.

Affirmed.

Bird and Griffen, JJ., agree.