Jermeill Ryan v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  DIVISION I  CACR07­262  NOVEMBER 7, 2007  JERMEILL RYAN  APPELLANT  V. APPEAL  FROM  THE  PULASKI  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT  [NO. CR05­4846]  HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON,  JUDGE  STATE OF ARKANSAS  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED  Jermeill Ryan was convicted of aggravated  assault  in  a bench trial in the Pulaski  County Circuit Court.  He was sentenced to three years’ probation and a fine of $500.  On  appeal he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction.  Finding no  merit to his arguments, we affirm the conviction.  Late in the morning of September 29, 2005, Ryan went to the Sherwood apartment  of his ex­girlfriend, Mary McClure, to retrieve a lawn chair from her.  Ryan admits that the  couple argued inside the apartment and continued arguing in the parking lot.  He also admits  pulling a loaded handgun from beneath the driver’s seat of his car and telling McClure that  he  would  use  it  to  shoot  her  new  boyfriend  if  he  came  to  Ryan’s  house.    Ryan  asserts,  however,  that  he  did  not  point  the  gun  at  McClure  and  that,  even  assuming  that  it  was  pointed at her, the State did not prove that he acted purposely. The crime of aggravated assault is governed by Ark. Code Ann. § 5­13­204(a) (Repl.  2005), which reads as follows:  A  person  commits  aggravated  assault  if,  under  circumstances  manifesting  extreme indifference to the value of human life, he or she purposely:  (1) Engages in conduct that creates a substantial danger of death  or serious physical injury to another person; or  (2) Displays a firearm in such a manner that creates a substantial  danger of death or serious physical injury to another person.  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. § 5­2­202(1).  When  an  appellant  challenges  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence  that  led  to  his  conviction, the  evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, and only the  evidence supporting the verdict will be considered.  Loar v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d  ___ (Nov. 30, 2006).  The appellate court will affirm a judgment of conviction if there is  substantial evidence to support it.  Id.  Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force  and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the  other, without resort to speculation or conjecture.  Id.  A criminal defendant’s intent or state of mind is rarely capable of proof by direct  evidence and usually must be inferred from the circumstances of the crime; deliberation may  be inferred from the conduct of the accused.  Chase v. State, 334 Ark. 274, 973 S.W.2d 791  (1998).  Thus,  a  presumption  exists  that  a  person  intends  the  natural  and  probable ­2­  CACR07­262  consequences  of  his  acts  because  of  the  difficulty  in  ascertaining  a  person’s  intent.  Alexander v. State, 78 Ark. App. 56, 77 S.W.3d 544 (2002).  The State’s evidence at trial included testimony by McClure, Staff Sergeant Joseph  Patrick Becker of the U.S. Air Force, and Detective Chris Kohn of the Sherwood Police  Department.  McClure testified that she and Ryan argued “out the  door” and “down the  stairs.”  She stated:  He got in my face and I know he wanted to hit me, but he wouldn’t.  So  he went to the car and pulled out his pistol.  . . . .  When he got the gun he cocked it and pointed it at me, and told me that  he would  kill whoever, and that he would also kill me.  He would kill my  brothers, he would kill my boyfriend, that if my boyfriend would come to his  house that he would also do something to him, too.  And that he would be  watching me, also.  When he pointed that, he pointed the gun directly at me.  . . . And I just stood there and held my hands up, and asked him was he going  to shoot me in broad daylight and that man [down the street] was watching.  . . . When he had the gun in his hand he stated that he would kill me.  I took  that threat seriously.  McClure testifed that her seven­year­old daughter brought McClure a telephone, that she  called 911, and that Ryan left.  The police came and McClure gave them a description of  Ryan’s car.  Staff Sergeant Becker testified that a gate guard stopped Ryan when he came into the  air base from Sherwood and that Becker asked him if he had any weapons in the vehicle.  Ryan said that there were no weapons and gave his consent for Becker to search the car.  Becker found a loaded handgun underneath the driver’s seat: there was a magazine in the gun ­3­  CACR07­262  and a round in the chamber. Becker testified that no field weapons were allowed on base and  that a sign posted at the gate stated the prohibition.  Detective Chris Kohn testified that he went to the gate and that Ryan was placed  under arrest.  Kohn retrieved from the car the loaded handgun that Becker had found, and  a second magazine was found in the vehicle besides the one that was in the weapon.  Kohn  transported Ryan to the police department and advised him of his Miranda rights, which  Ryan waived.  Ryan stated that he went to McClure’s apartment to retrieve his lawn chair,  that she confronted him about various incidents and followed him to his car, and that she  threatened to have her brother and friends go to Ryan’s apartment and harm him.  Ryan  stated that he pulled his pistol from under the driver’s seat, laid it on the seat beside him, and  told McClure that he would shoot anyone that she might send to his house to harm him.  Ryan told Kohn that he did not point the weapon at McClure, but simply showed it to her.  Ryan testified in his own defense at trial, essentially repeating the statement that he  had given at the police department.  Specifically denying that he cocked and pointed the gun  at McClure, he explained that he was on the driver’s side of his car while she was on the  passenger’s side.  He said that it had slipped his mind that the gun was under the seat when  he approached the air base gate, and he claimed not to remember telling Becker that there  was no gun in the car.  The credibility of witnesses is an issue for the fact finder and not for the appellate  court.  Meadows v. State, 360 Ark. 5, 199 S.W.3d 634 (2004).  The fact finder may resolve  questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence and may choose to believe the ­4­  CACR07­262  State’s  account  of  the  facts  rather  than  the  defendant’s.  Id.  Here,  the  State  presented  evidence that Ryan pointed a loaded weapon at McClure and verbally threatened to kill her.  Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and giving due deference to  the  fact  finder  to  determine  the  credibility  of  the  witnesses,  we  conclude  that  there  was  substantial evidence to sustain the conviction for aggravated assault.  Affirmed.  GLADWIN and HEFFLEY, JJ., agree. ­5­  CACR07­262 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.