Steven Schultz v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

TERRY CRABTREE, JUDGE

DIVISION I

STEVEN SCHULTZ

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 02-224

DECEMBER 4, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-2001-12-2]

HONORABLE H.A. TAYLOR JR., JUDGE

AFFIRMED

After a trial on September 14, 2001, the Jefferson County Circuit Court found that the appellant, Steven Schultz, violated a regulation of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, which requires a hunting guide to obtain a twenty-five dollar guide license. As a result, the trial court fined appellant $1,075, including costs. On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence. We affirm.

On January 2, 2001, Brent Staggs and Terry McCullough, wildlife officers with the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, were patrolling duck hunters at the Little Bayou Meto Park in Reyell. The officers put their boat in the water at the Grady cut-off and motored around a small island. Officer Staggs testified that he observed two boats tied to the riverbank. Officer Staggs recalled that manual and mechanized decoys were nearby inthe

water. Officer Staggs stated that as they approached the decoys, appellant "came down the bank screaming at us to leave" his hunting area. The officers identified themselves, and appellant, who was with three men from Texas, told the men to allow the officers to check their hunting licenses, duck stamps, and gun plugs. After the officers finished inspecting the information, the men continued to hunt. When ducks began flying towards the group, one of the men said to appellant, "We got ducks coming." Officer Staggs testified that appellant then grabbed his gun, ran to a tree, and started calling the ducks. None of the other three men tried to call any ducks. While the officers were present, one of the Texans said that the water was beginning to freeze. At that time, appellant got out of the boat to break the ice.

When Officer Staggs inspected the men's licenses, he noticed that each had a five-day "trip" license. One license was valid from December 31 to January 4, and two were valid from January 1 to January 5. However, all three licenses had been purchased one month earlier. This indicated to Officer Staggs that the hunting trips had been reserved in advance. Appellant told the officers that the three men paid his hunting club, Quack Shack Hunting Club, Inc., $150 per day to hunt, with a three-day minimum required.

Officer Staggs stated that both of the boats used by appellant and his companions had Arkansas registrations, which indicated to the officer that they likely belonged to appellant. When Officer Staggs inspected appellant's license, he discovered that appellant only possessed a regular hunting license rather than a guide's license. As a result, the officer issued appellant a citation for guiding without a proper license. Additionally, the officer gave the three other men citations. In the meantime, appellant asked one of his employeesto bring him his checkbook, and appellant wrote a check to pay for his companions' fines.

Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Code section 03.10 provides that "[i]t shall be unlawful to guide, aid, or assist another person, for pay or other consideration, in the taking of any species of wildlife of fish without obtaining a Commercial Guide License." A "guide" is defined as "[a] person who helps or aids, for hire, another person to hunt or fish." Ark. Game & Fish Comm'n Code § 01.00-C (1997). After considering testimony from appellant and Officers Staggs and McCullough, the trial court concluded that appellant served as a guide without a proper license on January 2, 2001.

Appellant made timely motions for a directed verdict. It is well settled that a motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Smith v. State, 346 Ark. 48, 55 S.W.3d 251 (2001). The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Durham v. State, 320 Ark. 689, 899 S.W.2d 470 (1995). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence convicting him, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Atkinson v. State, 347 Ark. 336, 64 S.W.3d 259 (2002).

The officers' testimonies were sufficient evidence to establish that appellant indeed acted as a guide for the three men from Texas. Initially, when the officers approached appellant's hunting site, appellant screamed at the officers in an effort to prevent them from invading the party's hunt. While the officers were present, only appellant broke the ice asit froze and only appellant called the ducks as they flew closer to the riverbank. In addition, someone purchased five-day trip licenses for the three Texans a month before the hunting expedition. The boats used by appellant and his companions had Arkansas registrations. Finally, appellant arranged for his companions' fines to be paid. These acts, considered together, are sufficient evidence that appellant acted as a guide for hire when he helped the three men from Texas hunt ducks.

We recognize that appellant's testimony conflicts with the officers' testimonies. For instance, appellant testified that the three men did not pay him to guide them. He stated that as a member of Quack Shack Hunting Club, "you get a place to stay, boats, motors, and trailers. You do not get a guide. The hunters decide where to go hunting. The hunters set out the decoys. The person who shoots the duck retrieves it." The appellate courts have repeatedly held that the issue of witness credibility is for the trial judge to weigh and assess. Green v. State, 334 Ark. 484, 978 S.W.2d 300 (1998). The trial court is not required to believe a witness's self-serving testimony. See Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415, 17 S.W.3d 61, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 998 (2000). Accordingly, we will defer to the superior position of the trial court to evaluate the credibility of witnesses. Humphrey v. State, 327 Ark. 753, 940 S.W.2d 860 (1997).

In his appellate brief, appellant argues that the State failed to offer evidence that he aided another person in killing any species of wildlife. Appellant claims that because the State did not offer proof that any ducks were shot or killed by him or the three Texans, that he could not have violated the licensure requirement. However, this was not the basis forappellant's directed-verdict motions made before the trial court. It is well settled that an appellant is limited by the nature and scope of his objections and arguments below. Maxwell v. State, 73 Ark. App. 45, 41 S.W.3d 402 (2001). Consequently, we are precluded from addressing this aspect of appellant's sufficiency argument.

As sufficient evidence supports the trial court's decision that appellant violated a section of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission's regulations, we affirm appellant's conviction and fine.

Affirmed.

Jennings and Bird, JJ., agree.