Massey v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 367
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CACR10-224
Opinion Delivered MAY
SHAWN MASSEY
APPELLANT
18, 2011
APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-09-146]
HONORABLE DAVID L.
REYNOLDS, JUDGE
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
The circuit court convicted Shawn Massey of the third-degree domestic battering of
his four-year-old stepdaughter in that, with the purpose of causing physical injury to a family
or household member, he caused physical injury to a family or household member. Ark. Code
Ann. § 5-26-305(a)(1) (Supp. 2009). Massey argues on appeal that the evidence was
insufficient to support the conviction. We affirm.
A teacher at the Mayflower School District noticed swelling and bruising on the
victim’s hand. The school nurse testified that she examined the victim and observed bruising
on the backs and palms of the victim’s hands. She also observed that the victim’s middle two
fingers were swollen. When the nurse asked the victim about the cause of her injuries, she
stated that her fingers were pulled back by “Shawn” to get her to be quiet. The victim
further stated that sometimes he would sit on her and pull her fingers back. The victim also
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 367
stated that when she was not quiet “Shawn put his fingers down her throat to get her to be
quiet.”
A physician later examined the victim. He determined that the victim had bruises on
the left side of her head, her back, and her buttocks. The bruises in each area were at
different stages of healing. He testified that the bruises on the head looked as if the victim had
been thump[ed], that the bruises on the back were the result blunt trauma, and that the
bruises on the buttocks appeared to be the result of spanking. He further testified that the
victim’s left hand had a hematoma on ninety to ninety-five percent of the dorsal surface,
including swelling of the fingers with very little bruising on the distal part of the third and
fourth digits. He concluded that, given the disproportional ecchymoses and swelling, the
victim’s hand was not injured by the closing of a car door; rather “there was a mechanism
of action like pulling her fingers back.” On cross-examination, the physician disagreed with
Massey’s attorney that the injury could have been caused by the hand being slammed in a
door or that he had previously so stated. He further acknowledged that he did not have a
photograph of the inside of the victim’s left hand and had based his determination that the
injury was not caused by a slamming door on his recollection of the condition of the hand.
Massey asserts on appeal that the physician’s opinion that the injury to the victim’s
hand was not consistent with the hand being slammed in a door was not credible because it
contradicted the physician’s earlier opinion and because his testimony was based not on
photographs but on his recollection that there was no bruising on the palm of the hand,
when in fact the school nurse had testified that there was bruising on both the backs and
2
Cite as 2011 Ark. App. 367
palms of the victim’s hands. Massey also asserts that while the school nurse testified about the
victim’s statement to her that Massey caused the injuries to her hand, this testimony was
inconsistent with other testimony. He notes that the victim testified that the injury to her
hand was caused by the slamming of a door and that she had previously stated to an
investigator that a ghost had caused her injuries. Massey also notes that the victim’s eightyear-old brother testified that the injury to the victim’s hand was the result of his having
slammed the door on her hand.
In challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State, considering only the evidence that supports the conviction, and
affirm if substantial evidence supports the conviction. See, e.g., Rounsaville v. State, 372 Ark.
252, 273 S.W.3d 486 (2008). The finder of fact determines the credibility of the witnesses
and resolves questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. Id.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the school nurse
testified that the victim told her that Massey caused the injuries to her hand by pulling her
fingers back. The treating physician’s testimony corroborated the victim’s statements to the
nurse in that he opined that this was the mechanism used to cause the injuries. While Massey
asserts that there were inconsistencies in the evidence, resolution of these inconsistencies was
for the finder of fact.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN and ABRAMSON, JJ., agree.
3
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.