Jesse Clifton v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

WENDELL L. GRIFFEN, JUDGE

DIVISION II

CACR02-686

April 9, 2003

JESSE CLIFTON AN APPEAL FROM MONTGOMERY

APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [CR01-22]

V. HON. GAYLE FORD, JUDGE

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

Appellant was convicted by a jury of third-degree battery. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence of his guilt. We disagree and affirm.

Justin Martin, a fifth-grader at Oden Elementary School, accused appellant, a twelfth-grade student at Oden High School, of shoving him into a rail and knocking the breath out of him. Martin claimed this incident happened on January 26, 2001. Appellant was arrested and charged with third-degree battery in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-203(a)(1) (Repl. 1997). On June 5, 2001, appellant entered a negotiated plea of guilty in the Municipal Court of Montgomery County. The trial court sentenced appellant to a suspended sentence of eleven months, with thirty days in the Montgomery County Jail. The trial court also orderedappellant to pay a three hundred dollar ($300) fine and to have no contact with Martin or Kelly Starr. Appellant then appealed his case to the Circuit Court of Montgomery County.

On October 22 and 23, 2001, appellant's case was tried before a circuit court jury. At trial, Justin Martin testified that on January 26, 2001, around 11:15 a.m., he was playing basketball at recess when appellant came up and shoved him. Martin stated that around 12:05 p.m. that day, as he was walking down a ramp after computer lab, appellant shoved him into a rail, knocking the breath out of him and saying, "Get out of my way." Martin believed that appellant shoved him because his father was the director of the 18th Circuit West Drug Task Force. Martin said that he had two bruises as a result of this incident. Margaret Martin, Justin's grandmother, testified that she noticed bruises on him when he came home from school and took pictures, which were submitted as evidence. Although she could not remember the date that she took the pictures, written on the back of them were the words "taken the 26th of January, 2001, right after school around 4:15 p.m."

Kelly Starr, who was with Martin when appellant allegedly shoved him, testified that appellant ran through him and Martin while they were on the ramp, knocking Martin into the rail, on the ground, and out of breath. Starr was not sure of the date that this incident occurred, but he testified that it happened on any day except a Friday because the boys did not have computer classes on Friday. Starr acknowledged that appellant could have hit Martin by accident just as well as intentionally, but professed that he did not know the underlying reason. Starr, however, mentioned that there was enough room on the ramp forsomeone to walk around Martin without having hit him.

Appellant's sister, Shona Clifton, testified that appellant was not at school on January 26, 2001. Shona, who was in ninth grade at the time of the alleged incident, stated that appellant could not have committed this act because he was not at school that day and because his name was listed on the school absentee list for January 26, 2001. The school absentee list was entered into evidence. Shona also mentioned that during physical education class, she observed Martin run into a flat unpadded wall, fall back, and start laughing; however, she did not provide any specific date when this might have occurred. Rosa Johnson, appellant's mother, also testified that appellant was not at school on January 26, 2001. She stated that she did not know the Martin family, but had heard that Chris Martin, Justin Martin's father, had arrested her; however, she denied being arrested by him. Appellant testified that he was not aware of the incident in which Martin was shoved and bruised and that he was not in school on January 26, 2001.

The State called Tim Edwards, principal at Oden High School, as a rebuttal witness. He explained that being placed on the school absentee list for a particular day did not mean that a student was absent the entire day. Edwards also testified that when he called appellant into his office to discuss the incident, appellant stated that he had seen Martin and Starr, but denied hitting the boys.

Appellant made a directed verdict motion at the close of the State's case-in-chief and renewed his directed verdict motion at the end of the State's rebuttal case. The trial court denied both motions. Based on this testimony, the jury found appellant guilty of third-degree battery, and appellant was sentenced to eighty hours of community service and a three-hundred and fifty dollar ($350) fine. This appeal followed.

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict because there was not sufficient evidence to support his conviction. A motion for directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Bangs v. State, 338 Ark. 515, 998 S.W.2d 738 (1999). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, considering only the evidence that supports the guilty verdict, and will affirm a conviction if there is substantial evidence to support it. Fairchild v. State, 349 Ark. 147, 76 S.W.3d 884 (2002). Evidence is substantial, whether direct or circumstantial, if it is of sufficient force and character that, with reasonable certainty, it will compel a conclusion one way or the other and pass beyond mere speculation or conjecture. Carmichael v. State, 340 Ark. 598, 12 S.W.3d 225 (2000). We defer to the jury's determination on the matter of witness credibility. Winters v. State, 41 Ark. App.104, 848 S.W.2d 441 (1993).

Under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-13-203(a)(1) (Repl. 1997), a person commits third-degree battery if "[w]ith the purpose of causing physical injury to another person, he causes physical injury to any person." Physical injury is defined as the infliction of bruising, swelling, or visible marks associated with physical trauma. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-102(14) (Supp. 2001). "A person acts purposely with respect to his conduct or a result thereof when it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result." Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202(1) (Repl. 1997).

Here, both Martin and Starr testified that appellant shoved Martin into a rail, knocking him out of breath, and Martin said that the incident left him with bruises. Martin claimed the incident occurred on January 26, 2001, whereas Starr did not remember the date. Further, Principal Edwards testified that the fact that a student's name was placed on the absentee list does not mean that the student was absent the entire day.

Appellant contends that the testimony of Martin standing alone should not be considered substantial evidence and that there were discrepancies in the testimony of the other witnesses. Appellant claims that based on the evidence presented in this case, the jury had to resort to speculation and conjecture in order to determine that he was guilty, contending the injury and the date of the injury were speculative. Nevertheless, the supreme court has stated that the uncorroborated testimony of one State's witness is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Galvin v. State, 323 Ark. 125, 912 S.W.2d 932 (1996). Moreover, on matters of witness credibility and conflicting testimony, we have repeatedly held that the determination of these issues is for the jury to resolve. Id.; Wilson v. State, 320 Ark. 707, 898 S .W.2d 469 (1995). Although appellant denies shoving Martin and claims that he was not at school on the day of the alleged incident, the jury was not required to believe his testimony, especially since he was the person most interested in the outcome of the proceeding. Zones v. State, 287 Ark. 483, 702 S.W.2d 1 (1985). Accordingly, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for directed verdict because there was substantial evidence to support his conviction.

Affirmed.

Stroud, C.J., and Roaf, J., agree.