Willie Gene Radford v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

TERRY CRABTREE, JUDGE

DIVISION I

WILLIE GENE RADFORD

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 02-770

APRIL 16, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR 2001-309]

HONORABLE EDWIN A. KEATON, JUDGE

REVERSED AND DISMISSED

The appellant was found guilty in a bench trial of third-degree domestic battery, a misdemeanor, and was sentenced to six months in jail. As his only issue on appeal, he contends that the evidence is insufficient to support the trial court's finding of guilt. We agree and reverse and dismiss.

A person commits the offense of third-degree domestic battery if, with the purpose of causing physical injury to a family or household member, a person causes physical injury to a family or household member. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-26-305(a)(1) (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. 1999).

The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is

supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Polk v. State, 348 Ark. 446, 73 S.W.3d 609 (2002). Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character as to compel, with reasonable certainty, a conclusion beyond speculation or conjecture. Jones v. State, 349 Ark. 331, 78 S.W.3d 104 (2002). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Alexander v. State, 78 Ark. App. 56, 77 S.W.3d 544 (2002). The credibility of the witnesses is an issue for the fact-finder. Phillips v. State, 344 Ark. 453, 40 S.W.3d 778 (2001).

Circumstantial evidence provides the basis to support a conviction if it is consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis. Howard v. State, 348 Ark. 471, 79 S.W.3d 273 (2002). Such a determination is a question of fact for the fact-finder to determine. Harshaw v. State, 348 Ark. 62, 71 S.W.3d 548 (2002).

At trial, Scott Wells, a police officer for the City of Camden, testified that on the evening of November 24, 2001, he responded to a call of a domestic disturbance at the residence where appellant resided with Missie Radford and her granddaughter. He said that appellant was slightly inebriated when he arrived, that appellant and Ms. Radford were having some sort of argument, and that he left after determining that the conflict had been resolved. Officer Wells stated that, thirty minutes later, he received another call to respond to the residence for a fight in progress. When he arrived this time, Ms. Radford was reclining on the couch and holding her leg. He said that she was upset and yelling because she had been stabbed in the leg. There was a knife lying on the floor next to her. He saidthat appellant was drinking in front of him. Wells spoke to Ms. Radford and her granddaughter, and he arrested the appellant. He took a written statement from Ms. Radford later at the hospital.

Ms. Radford testified that she and appellant had argued that night about a car. She explained that she was tired and had been in bed when appellant came home and started the argument. She testified that she was going to leave and that she went into the living room to get her purse. She said that she got her purse and had her leg up on the couch while she searched for her keys. She testified that she removed an opened knife from her purse while she was looking for the keys and that she moved her hand, forgetting that she had a knife, and accidentally stabbed herself in the leg when appellant came across the room towards her. Ms. Radford said that the wound required three stitches. She further testified that she had phoned for the police the first time that night, but that the second call had been placed by her granddaughter. For purposes of impeachment only and not as substantive evidence, Ms. Radford was confronted with the statement she had given to Officer Wells in which she said that appellant had stabbed her.

The evidence in this case shows that the police were called to the residence twice that evening: once for a domestic disturbance and then for a fight in progress. When the police arrived the second time, Ms. Radford was lying on the couch, bleeding from an apparent stab-wound. A knife was sitting next to her on the floor. From this evidence, it can be surmised that appellant and Ms. Radford were arguing that night and that she was stabbed on the leg. However, the evidence does not reveal which combatant was the aggressor. Although the trial court did not find Ms. Radford's testimony to be credible, there was otherwise no evidence that appellant purposely stabbed her with the knife. Based on the circumstantial evidence, the injury could have been accidental as Ms. Radford described, or it could have been that appellant stabbed her. It is equally plausible, however, that Ms. Radford brandished a knife and that she was injured during a struggle. On this record, we can find no substantial evidence to support the trial court's determination that the evidence excluded every other reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt.

Reversed and Dismissed.

Hart and Bird, JJ., agree.