Pike v. State

Billy PIKE v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 95-949                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 16, 1996


1.   Appeal & error -- parties cannot change the grounds for an
     objection on appeal -- arguments not raised at trial not
     reached on appeal. -- It is well-settled that parties cannot
     change the grounds for an objection on appeal, but are bound
     by the scope and nature of the objections and arguments
     presented at trial; this is true even in cases where the
     sentence is life without parole, as the reviewing court's duty
     is only to examine the record for error on objections decided
     adversely to the appellant, not to address arguments that
     might have been made; where appellant's motions for directed
     verdict did not mention the other man's name that appellant
     said could have committed the murder, much less an argument
     that the State's proof failed to exclude the reasonable
     hypothesis that this other man killed the victim, nor did
     appellant present the argument that the certified docket sheet
     admitted into evidence proved that the State's witness was in
     custody at the time she claimed to have witnessed the murder,
     those points were not considered on appeal.

2.   Evidence -- challenge to the sufficiency of -- factors on
     review. -- In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence,
     the court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to
     the State and sustains the judgment of conviction if there is
     substantial evidence to support it; evidence is substantial if
     it is of sufficient force and character to compel reasonable
     minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and 
     conjecture; in reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, the
     court need only consider evidence in support of the
     conviction; circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial
     evidence when every other reasonable hypothesis consistent
     with innocence is excluded; whether a reasonable hypothesis
     exists is for the trier of fact to resolve.

3.   Witnesses -- credibility of determined by the jury, not the
     appellate court. -- The appellate court does not decide
     whether the State's witnesses were credible; the jury has the
     right to believe all or any part of a witness' testimony. 

4.   Evidence -- jury chose to believe eyewitness -- sufficient
     evidence found that appellant committed the murder. -- Where
     the jury believed the eyewitness's account and another man's
     denial that he was involved in the shooting over appellant's
     theory of the case, the jury was able to exclude every other
     reasonable hypothesis consistent with appellant's innocence,
     and the eyewitness's testimony matched the medical testimony
     and the autopsy results and she confirmed that the clothes the
     victim was wearing when her body was discovered were the same
     as those she was wearing at the time of the shooting, the
     State presented sufficient evidence that appellant committed
     the murder.  


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, Fourth Division; John
Langston, Judge; affirmed.
     William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by:  C. Joseph
Cordi, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  David R. Raupp, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Bradley D. Jesson, Chief Justice.
01/16/96







BILLY PIKE,
                    APPELLANT,

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,
                    APPELLEE,





CR95-949


APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH DIVISION
(CR94-2029)


HONORABLE JOHN LANGSTON
CIRCUIT JUDGE




AFFIRMED.




                Bradley D. Jesson, Chief Justice

     The appellant, Billy Pike, was convicted of the capital murder
of Sunday Stanfield and sentenced to life imprisonment without
parole.  His sole point on appeal is a challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence.  We affirm. 
     On appeal, Pike raises specific points in support of his
position that the State's evidence was insufficient to convict him
of the capital murder charge.  He argues that the State's evidence
failed to exclude the substantial possibility that another man,
Bobby Chapple, killed the victim.  He also contends that a
certified docket sheet admitted into evidence proved that Michelle
Basey, the State's eyewitness, was in custody at the time she
claimed to have witnessed the murder.  Finally, he maintains that
there was insufficient evidence presented that he killed the
victim.  In reviewing the motions for directed verdict that Pike
made below, we conclude that only the last of these specific points
was preserved for our review.  At the close of the State's case,
counsel for Pike stated as follows:
     We'll move for a directed verdict.  Notwithstanding the
     credibility of some of the State's witnesses, Your Honor,
     I don't believe the State has shown sufficient evidence
     to show any kind of premeditated or deliberated purpose
     on the part of [Pike].  I guess, taking Miss Basey's
     testimony in the best light, at the very most we have
     from Miss Basey that she was in the basement with one
     shot, one shot that she testified to.  She did not see
     Sunday Stanfield fall or have impact from, but she was
     standing right up in front of Billy Pike.  And that was
     the only shot that she saw fired.  She testified that she
     could not even tell us that it had hit its target, and
     then that she left that basement, and she heard one more
     shot.  Other than that, we don't have anything causally
     connecting any incident or anything that Billy Pike did
     here.  At the very most we got one shot that the State's
     best witness cannot say had any impact at all.  So we
     don't even know if he shot her from what the State's
     presented today or presented in their case in chief.

     (Following the deputy prosecutor's response, counsel for
     Pike continued as follows:

     Your Honor, taking the State's case in its best light, I
     only recall hearing one shot after she left that
     basement.  State says well, that obviously they had a
     third shot.  They're speculating at best in regards to
     what had happened.  The testimony of Miss Basey was Miss
     Stanfield was standing straight up, looking at him when
     he shot her in the head.  There's no consistency with
     that testimony, and the testimony of the medical examiner
     was that she was shot two times behind the left ear. 
     That is absolutely inconsistent with that testimony at
     all.  She testified she didn't know what happened after
     she left that basement, and none of us know what happened
     after she left that basement.  What the State has
     presented is that they've got a body in a basement. 
     They've got what they think is the killer down there. 
     They have him maybe firing a gun at the person, but not
     in the right direction that the medical testimony states,
     and that's it.  And they want this Court to take all of
     that, and swallow it and say well, then, he must have
     been, only fired three times at her.  And taking it, the
     inconsistencies in that testimony, it must have been four
     times, because the first one he shot when she was
     standing straight up, and he couldn't have physically
     have done what the medical examiner says happened, strike
     her two times behind the left ear. 

At the close of all the evidence, Pike renewed his motion as
follows:
     I don't believe the State has shown any premeditated or
     deliberated purpose.  Here at best, taking the testimony,
     what we would believe at this point, would be an
     incredible not a credible witness, that being the
     testimony of Miss Basey based upon the evidence, both in
     the State's case and in the Defense's case.  Taking that
     evidence in its best light, Miss Basey said that she saw
     one shot,  That Miss Stanfield was standing straight up,
     looking at Mr. Pike at the time a shot was fired.  The
     testimony of the medical examiner was clearly that the
     weapon, the bullets hit her in the back of the head, and
     that Miss Basey left out after one shot had been fired. 
     And her testimony was she heard one more shot.  She
     doesn't know anything about if it was at anybody or not
     at anybody, but that there is insufficient evidence to
     show that there's any evidence to show that Mr. Pike
     killed this woman with any nature, premeditated or
     anything.

     It is well-settled that parties cannot change the grounds for
an objection on appeal, but are bound by the scope and nature of
the objections and arguments presented at trial.  Stewart v. State,
320 Ark. 75, 894 S.W.2d 930 (1995); Childress v. State, 322 Ark.
127, 907 S.W.2d 718 (1995).  This is true even in cases where the
sentence is life without parole, as our duty is only to examine the
record for error on objections decided adversely to the appellant,
not to address arguments that might have been made.  Childress v.
State, supra; see also Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(h).  Nowhere in Pike's
motions for directed verdict did he mention Bobby Chapple's name,
much less an argument that the State's proof failed to exclude the
reasonable hypothesis that Chapple killed the victim.  Nor did Pike
present the argument that the certified docket sheet admitted into
evidence proved that Michelle Basey was in custody at the time she
claimed to have witnessed the murder.  Thus, the only point we will
consider is whether the State presented sufficient evidence that
Pike committed the murder.
     We have recently repeated our guidelines for reviewing
challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in Mills v. State,
322 Ark. 647, ___ S.W.2d ___ (1995):
     In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this
     court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to
     the State and sustains the judgment of conviction if
     there is substantial evidence to support it. Abdullah v.
     State, 301 Ark. 235, 783 S.W.2d 58 (1990).  Evidence is
     substantial if it is of sufficient force and character to
     compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass
     beyond suspicion and conjecture. Williams v. State, 298
     Ark. 484, 768 S.W.2d 539 (1989).  In reviewing the
     sufficiency of the evidence, we need only consider
     evidence in support of the conviction. Id. 

322 Ark. at 654.  Circumstantial evidence may constitute
substantial evidence when every other reasonable hypothesis
consistent with innocence is excluded. Nooner v. State, 322 Ark.
87, 907 S.W.2d 677 (1995); Trimble v. State, 316 Ark. 161, 871 S.W.2d 562 (1994); Sheridan v. State, 313 Ark. 23, 852 S.W.2d 560
(1992); Bennett v. State, 308 Ark. 393, 825 S.W.2d 560 (1992). 
Whether a reasonable hypothesis exists is for the trier of fact to
resolve. Id; see also Hadley v. State, 322 Ark. 472, ___ S.W.2d ___
(1995); Walker v. State, 313 Ark. 478, 855 S.W.2d 932 (1993).
     The evidence, viewed in the light most favorable to the State,
is as follows.  On the morning of Tuesday, March 15, 1994, Bruce
Stanfield found the body of his sister, Sunday Stanfield, in the
basement of their mother's home at 1228 West 35th Street in Little
Rock.  The basement, according to Bruce, was a hideaway where he
and others in the neighborhood smoked crack cocaine.  Ollie
Stanfield, the victim's mother, last saw her daughter around noon
on Sunday, March 13.  Officer Connie Simmons of the Little Rock
Police Department arrived at the scene at approximately 11:00 a.m.
on March 15 and located the victim lying in a fetal position with
her left hand in her pocket.  Officers recovered a copper
projectile and two spent .38 shell casings near the body.  The
victim's clothing was also collected, which included a black t-
shirt, blue pants, and a bra.  
     Michelle Basey testified that she was a crack addict when she
met the victim at Cathy Morrison's house on a Sunday.  The three
smoked crack supplied by the victim.  The victim left, telling
Basey that she would be on Martin Luther King Street.  Basey found
the victim later that night with her sister, Odetta Stanfield, and
the appellant, Billy Pike.  The victim was dressed in the same
clothing she was wearing when her body was discovered.  The four
ended up in a basement of a house, where Odetta got them some drugs
then left.  Basey stayed and began smoking crack cocaine.  Pike and
the victim were talking when Pike yelled, "Bitch you owe me." 
Basey, who had been a prostitute, understood this statement to mean
that the victim owed Pike a sex act because he had paid her money. 
The victim kneeled down and began performing oral sex on Pike. 
When the victim stood back up, Pike slapped her.  A fight broke
out, and Pike pulled out a gun.  Pike, who was facing the victim,
pointed the gun to the victim's head and shot her.  After Pike
fired this shot, the victim remained standing.  Basey ran out the
door.  As she was running, she heard another gunshot.  Basey did
not see Bobby Chapple in the basement on the night the victim was
shot.  She did not go to the police that evening because she was
scared, high on crack cocaine, and there was a warrant out for her
arrest.  Nearly one and one half months later, on April 28, Basey
contacted police claiming to have been raped by Pike in a separate
incident.  At this time, she told police about witnessing the
shooting of Sunday in the basement.      
     Detective James Chandler of the Little Rock Police Department
initially developed Bobby Chapple as a suspect in the murder. 
Accompanied by counsel, Chapple turned himself in at the police
department and denied any involvement in the crime.  Chapple
testified at trial that he knew the victim from the streets.  He
admitted that he had dealt drugs out of the home of a woman named
Gwen Simmons.  He further admitted to having had "run-ins" with
Sunday over drugs and to having threatened her at her mother's
house.  He also stated that he had shot a gun into Simmons's house. 
Chapple specifically denied shooting Sunday Stanfield.  He
testified that he did not think it unusual for the same gun to have
been used to shoot into Simmons's house and to have killed Sunday. 
According to Chapple, when a gun came up missing, he would just get
another one.  This was something that "happened every day." 
Detective Chandler offered similar testimony, stating that it was
his experience that guns go through as many as 15 people,
especially if used in a crime, and are often traded for drugs.   
     Dr. Charles Kokes, Associate Medical Examiner of the State
Crime Lab, performed the autopsy on the victim.  It was his opinion
that the victim died from multiple gunshot wounds.  One bullet
entered the skull above the victim's left ear and exited her cheek. 
According to Dr. Kokes, the victim could have remained standing
after sustaining this wound.  Bruising around this wound indicated
that the victim was alive at the time of impact.  A second bullet
entered behind the victim's left ear and had been delivered at
close range.  It was Dr. Kokes's opinion that the victim could not
have remained standing after this wound.  A third wound was a
superficial wound caused when a bullet grazed the front of the
victim's lower left leg.  Cocaine was present in the victim's blood
and urine.  The small pipe in her hand contained cocaine residue. 
     We do not decide whether the State's witnesses were credible. 
State v. Long, 311 Ark. 248, 844 S.W.2d 302 (1992).  The jury has
the right to believe all or any part of a witness' testimony. Id. 
The jury obviously believed Basey's eyewitness account and
Chapple's denial that he was involved in the shooting over Pike's
theory of the case.  Stated another way, the jury was able to
exclude every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with Pike's
innocence.  Basey's account can also be reconciled with the medical
testimony.  Basey said the victim remained standing after Pike
pointed the gun to her head and shot; Dr. Kokes testified that the
victim could have remained standing after sustaining one of the
bullet wounds to the head.  She heard a second shot; the victim was
shot more than once.  Basey said the victim had been smoking crack
cocaine prior to her death; autopsy results indicated the presence
of cocaine in the victim's blood and urine.  Basey confirmed that
the clothes the victim was wearing when her body was discovered
were the same as those she was wearing at the time of the shooting. 
In sum, the State presented sufficient evidence that Pike committed
the murder.  
     The record has been examined in accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct.
R. 4-3(h), and no prejudicial error has been found which would
warrant reversal.
     Affirmed.