Anthony K. Randle v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS  No.  CR07­490  Opinion Delivered  1­31­08  ANTHONY K. RANDLE,  APPELLANT,  VS.  STATE OF ARKANSAS,  APPEAL FROM THE CIRCUIT COURT  OF  PULASKI  COUNTY,  NO.  CR2006­  2 5 8 9 ,   H O N O R A B L E   M AR IO N  HUMPHREY, JUDGE,  APPELLEE,  AFFIRMED.  ROBERT L. BROWN, Associate Justice  Appellant Anthony K. Randle appeals his conviction for capital murder in the death  of Ranson Harrison, for which he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole.  For  his  sole  point  on  appeal,  he  claims  that  the  circuit  court’s  ruling  foreclosing  him  from  presenting  evidence that cocaine was found in Ranson Harrison’s system at the autopsy  denied him a fair trial.  We disagree, and we affirm.  On Sunday, April 16, 2006, Ranson Harrison was shot and killed outside Hudson’s  Fish Market in North Little Rock.  Randle was eventually arrested and charged with capital  murder.  At trial, witnesses testified to the following events.  On Friday, April 14, 2006,  Harrison  and  Randle  were  involved  in  a  fight  that  was  witnessed  by  a  large  number  of  people.  Randle initiated the argument but was eventually knocked to the ground by Harrison  and had to be helped to his feet by a friend.  Later that night, Randle accosted Gloria Cole, Harrison’s girlfriend, and tried to get her to tell him where Harrison was.  Seeing a gun, Cole  was frightened and ran to the residence of Hattie and Hubert Nowden, Harrison’s mother and  stepfather, where she banged on the door.  The Nowdens answered, and Randle followed  Cole to the porch.  After Mrs. Nowden asked his name, Randle left the area.  The next day, Saturday, Harrison went to a friend’s house to ask if he could borrow  a gun for self­protection.  On Sunday, which was the day of the murder and two days after  the  fight,  Cole  and  Harrison  went  to  a  local  convenience  store  together.    The  couple  completed their purchase and went back outside, where they met an acquaintance of Cole’s,  who asked her to get him a soda.  She left Harrison outside and returned to the store for the  soda.  She returned outside and was handing her acquaintance the soda when she heard three  gunshots.  She  looked  up  and  saw  Randle  fleeing  the  scene  in  a  burgundy  sport  utility  vehicle.  There was another witness to the murder, Cherita King, who saw a burgundy  or crimson SUV drive up to Harrison.  She saw the arm of a male African American reach  out of the SUV holding a gun and shoot three or four times.  She testified about the clothing  worn  by  the  killer  but  could  not  identify  him  as  Randle.    She  saw  Harrison  run  a  short  distance and fall to the ground.  After the SUV left the scene, she ran to give aid to Harrison  and called for a neighbor to call 911.  The medical examiner testified the Harrison died of a single gunshot wound to his  chest.  During the police investigation, suspicion turned to Randle.  Police discovered that  Randle’s  sometime  girlfriend,  Yvonne  Armistead,  owned  a  maroon  SUV  to  which  she ­2­  CR07­490  testified Randle could have gotten access.  When questioned, Randle admitted to the Friday  night fight but claimed to be fishing with two friends at the time of the  murder.    These  friends initially confirmed his story but later, when confronted with the frequent cell phone  calls  that  had  transpired  between  the  three  men  during  the  time  they  were  supposedly  together fishing, they admitted to fabricating the story to protect Randle from suspicion.  Randle was then charged with capital murder.  At  a  pretrial  hearing,  the  State  made  a  motion  in  limine  to  exclude  evidence  that  cocaine was found in the victim’s system during the autopsy.  The State argued that the  evidence would have no relevance, given Harrison’s general denial defense, except to show  the victim as a man of bad character.  Defense counsel contested the motion, saying:  Well, I think it should be brought out, Your Honor, due to the simple fact that  the defense – we’ve made no claim we’re going to use it as to him being a bad  person.  I think that the jurors – I think that is, once again, in the province of  the jurors to decide if this man was under the influence or not.  It’s not going  to – I can see where the evidence would go to show that he’s a bad person.  But what we’re dealing with, Your Honor, we’ve got a number of witnesses  who  also  do  cocaine  and  have  done  cocaine  with  him.  So,  it’s  a  very  important part of our case.  We’re not trying to use it to make him look bad but  it is an important part of our case that the autopsy said that he was under the  influence.  We can impeach witnesses with that, not necessarily him.  But,  Your Honor, I don’t – I think that it would severely prejudice our case where  we couldn’t get a fair defense if that was said or not.  When the circuit court asked for clarification about the relevance of cocaine in the victim’s  system, defense counsel answered:  Well, Your Honor, that would be used to show that this man – basically, it  would show that he – it wouldn’t show his character or anything.  It would  show that he was under the influence at this time and also it leaves room for ­3­  CR07­490  us to impeach other witnesses about, if they’re going to testify to this, them  being with him.  I just – you know – I think this is a province that should be  –  I  should  be  able  to  use  for  the  simple  fact,  Your  Honor,  for  not  only  impeachment purposes but on other witnesses. I know I can’t impeach him but  I can use this for other purposes on other witnesses.  I mean, if they bring his  character into issue – he’s a good guy or something like that or he’s never  done drugs – then I can’t use that if its kept out. . . . [W]hat we’re saying is  this:  we’ve  got  other  witnesses  here  who  –  which  most  of  the  prosecution  witnesses are going to have something to do with this guy during the – almost  –  during the  time  that  he  got  killed  or  sometime  before.    And  I  think  that  should be allowed for me for impeachment purposes.  I don’t – I’m not trying  to reflect on this guy’s character.  I mean, that’s not what I would want to use  it for.  The circuit court granted the State’s motion and excluded the evidence “unless that matter  is brought out or subject to impeaching some other witness as to what they were doing from  time­to­time and whether or not they’d been involved with drugs or someone says that he  was not a user.  Then, the Court would permit you to delve into that.”  At trial, defense counsel did not call any witnesses, but he did cross­examine the  State’s witnesses.  In particular, defense counsel questioned State witness Gloria Cole about  her ability to see and recall the events surrounding the murder.  Defense counsel also made  several  attempts  to  elicit  testimony  regarding  Harrison’s  and  Cole’s  unemployed  and  homeless status.  At one point at trial, defense counsel asked Cole whether she smoked crack.  This  drew an objection from the State, which was sustained.  Defense counsel did not make any  argument as to why the objection should be overruled; nor did he attempt to question Cole  more specifically about her drug use on the day of the murder.  At no time during the trial ­4­  CR07­490  did  defense  counsel  argue  that  cocaine  in  the  victim’s  system  had  become  relevant  to  impeaching a specific witness or relevant to Randle’s defense.  The jury found Randle guilty of capital  murder.  The State had waived the death  penalty, and Randle received an automatic life sentence without the possibility of parole.  Randle now contends on appeal that the exclusion of the evidence that the victim had  cocaine in his system at the time of the murder denied him his constitutional right to a fair  trial and also violated Rules 401, 402 and 403 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence.  The  victim’s status as an unemployed drug user was relevant, Randle argues, because it supported  a theory that the victim was killed by a drug dealer to whom he owed money.  Although it  is not entirely clear, Randle also appears to assert that the presence of cocaine in the victim’s  system would have shed light on the similar cocaine intoxication of a major State witness,  Gloria Cole, during her trial testimony.  Randle asserts that Cole fabricated her testimony  about seeing Randle in the maroon SUV at the time of the shooting.  The State counters that Randle’s arguments with respect to the admissibility of the  toxicological screening for cocaine have not been preserved for appeal.  In this regard, the  State notes that the claim that a third­party drug dealer was responsible for the murder was  not raised at trial.  Nor, argues the State, did Randle argue to the circuit court that he  was  denied  his  constitutional  right  to  a  fair  trial.    In  order  to  preserve  the  issue  of  the  admissibility of the cocaine in the victim’s system for appeal, the State argues, Randle was  required to proffer the evidence that he sought to have admitted.  This he did not do.  In the ­5­  CR07­490  absence of a proffer, the State asserts, there is an insufficient record for this court to review,  and the issue is simply not preserved.  We agree with the State.  This court has made it crystal clear that in order to preserve  an argument, even one that is constitutional in nature, for appeal, it must be raised at trial.  See, e.g., Davis v. State, 368 Ark. 401, 409, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (2007); Raymond v. State,  354 Ark. 157, 162, 118 S.W.3d 567, 571 (2003).  As this court has noted, “[i]f a particular  theory was not presented at trial, the theory will not be reached on appeal.”  Raymond v.  State, 354 Ark. at 162, 118 S.W.3d at 571 (2003); Rodgers v. State, 360 Ark. 24, 30­31, 199  S.W.3d 625, 629 (2004) (“A party cannot change his grounds for an objection or motion on  appeal but is bound by the scope and nature of the arguments made at trial.”).  Nowhere does  the record reveal that Randle presented the circuit court with a theory that the cocaine in  Harrison’s system was relevant because Harrison’s death was caused by money he owed a  drug dealer.  Randle’s  collateral  argument,  which  is  that  the  evidence  of  cocaine  found  in  Harrison’s system was relevant to show drug use on the part of the State’s witness, Gloria  Cole,  is  also  not  preserved  for  review.    The  circuit  court  never  ruled  that  the  autopsy  evidence could not be introduced for this purpose but said only that the evidence would be  excluded “unless that matter is brought out or subject to impeaching some other witness as  to what they were doing from time­to­time and whether or not they’d been involved with  drugs or someone says that he was not a user.”  (Emphasis added.)  At no time did Randle’s ­6­  CR07­490  defense counsel attempt to impeach any witness with this information.  In fact, although  defense counsel indirectly suggested in opening statement that Cole might have been on  drugs at the time of the murder or during her testimony on the witness stand, he only once  attempted to question her on the subject, when he asked her the general question whether she  1  used crack.  When  the  circuit  court  sustained  the  State’s  objection  to  this  question,  Randle’s  counsel neither argued that the objection should be overruled nor proffered the testimony that  he would have obtained if he had been allowed to pursue the question of Cole’s mental state  and ability to observe the murder.  In sum, defense counsel failed to pursue even Cole’s drug  use, let alone the relevance of the cocaine in Harrison’s system for impeaching Cole or any  other witness.  In addition, the substance of excluded testimony must be proffered or the  exclusion will not be preserved for appeal.  Jones v. State, 321 Ark. 649, 653, 907 S.W.2d  672, 674 (1995) (“It is well established that error may not be predicated upon a ruling which  excludes evidence unless both a substantial right of the party is affected and the substance  of the excluded evidence was made known to the trial court by offer of proof or was apparent  from the context within which the questions were asked.”); see also Ark. R. Evid. 103(a)(2)  (2007).    We  agree  again  with  the  State  that  the  collateral  issue  is  not  preserved  for  our  review. 1  Although  appellant  in  his  brief  on  appeal  does  not  directly  challenge  the  circuit  court’s refusal to allow Randle’s counsel to question Cole regarding her drug use, he does  complain in his brief that Cole’s drug use caused her to fabricate her testimony.  ­7­  CR07­490  An examination of the record has been made in accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4­  3(h) and Ark. R. App. P.­Crim. 14, and it has been determined that there were no rulings  adverse to Randle which constituted prejudicial error.  Affirmed. ­8­  CR07­490 

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.