Michael R. Keisler v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

DIVISION III

MICHAEL R. KEISLER,

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS,

APPELLEE

CACR04-354

FEBRUARY 2, 2005

APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,

(NO. CR02-269-2)

HON. PHILLIP H. SHIRRON, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Sam Bird, Judge

Appellant Michael Keisler was tried by jury on the charge of first-degree battery in connection with the stabbing of his neighbor, Jason Stovall. Keisler was convicted of the lesser-included offense of second-degree battery, was sentenced to six years' imprisonment, and was ordered to pay a $10,000 fine. His sole point on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. Because there was substantial evidence to support Keisler's conviction in this case, we affirm.

Officer Richard Hilborn of the Malvern Police Department testified that on October 19, 2002, he responded to a call at Jason Stovall's residence. Officer Hilborn said that when he arrived he noticed Keisler at the house next door attempting to drive away in a white Thunderbird. He also said that he asked Keisler what was going on, and Keisler answered that he "didn't know." Hilborn subsequently entered Stovall's residence and found that Stovall had been stabbed in the abdomen.

Officer Hilborn questioned Stovall about who had stabbed him and Stovall told him that Keisler had done it. At that point, Hilborn said, Officer Christopher Stuffle of the Malvern Police Department took Keisler into custody and checked Keisler's vehicle. Hilborn stated that during the search, Officer Stuffle had located a knife upon the hood of the vehicle.

Officer Stuffle testified that he assisted Officer Hilborn in responding to the call at Stovall's residence. When Stuffle arrived, Officer Hilborn was standing on the porch next door with Keisler. Stuffle said that he recognized Keisler and that "he fit the description of the suspect that was given by the dispatcher." Stuffle also said that he told Hilborn to detain Keisler until they could "figure out what was going on," and that he then made contact with the people at Stovall's residence and secured the crime scene perimeter.

During the course of his investigation at the crime scene, Officer Stuffle performed a "cursory examination" of Keisler's vehicle and found a knife "between where the dash board and the hood of the vehicle meet." According to Stuffle, the knife appeared to have fresh blood on it. Stuffle also said that no weapons were found on Keisler's person at the time of his arrest, but that he had what appeared to be blood on his hands and on the front of his shirt and that the blood did not appear to come from him. Furthermore, Stuffle testified that Keisler "just appeared to be a little [disheveled], but [there were] no physical injuries."

Jason Stovall testified that he argued with Keisler on the evening before Stovall was stabbed. Stovall said that he was a rap artist in the music business and that he had some friends over to work on a CD that night. According to Stovall, Keisler became angry because of some cars that were parked on Keisler's property. The cars were later moved, and Keisler made no further complaints until the next morning.

Stovall said that around 11:30 a.m. on October 19, 2002, Keisler knocked on his door and began "arguing again." Stovall testified that he told Keisler to leave; he then left, but returned ten minutes later. At that point, Stovall went outside and they argued; Keisler then stabbed Stovall three times in the abdomen. Stovall testified that Keisler was "telling [him] to come out in the yard," but that he did not know exactly what Keisler said. Stovall also stated that he did not recall "who swung the first blow."

Ronnie Dyer testified that he lived with Jason Stovall and that he was present when Stovall was stabbed. According to Dyer, there was a "get together for a demo" at Stovall's residence on the night of October 18, 2002, and on the following morning, Keisler came over to the residence and was "outside yelling something." Dyer said that he went to the door and told Keisler to stop, but that Keisler "kept on" after Dyer closed the door. Dyer said that Stovall and Keisler then "went outside and started arguing." He also said that "they were swinging, hitting each other," and that he did not know "who swung first." Dyer stated that Keisler stabbed Stovall and that when Dyer came outside to assist Stovall after the stabbing, Keisler was "standing there with blood dripping from his hand" and saying, "Come on."

Dyer testified that he carried Stovall into the house after the stabbing, and that when he came back out of the house, Keisler was "by his car." At that point, Dyer said, he saw Keisler place the knife between the windshield and the hood. Dyer also told Keisler that they had "called the law."

Brandi Hairgrove, Stovall's girlfriend, said that she also witnessed the events occurring on October 18 and 19 of 2002. She said that Keisler came over on the morning of October 19 and asked about some broken windows on his property. Hairgrove responded that she did not know who was responsible for the windows. When she shut the door, Keisler walked off. A few minutes later, she said, she heard Keisler outside screaming, "Jason, Jason," and Stovall went outside. When Hairgrove looked outside, she saw Keisler and Stovall "in the front yard scuffling around." After she saw that Stovall had been stabbed, she ran across the street to call 911.

At the close of the State's case-in-chief, Keisler made a motion for a directed verdict based on the State's failure to show that he had purposely caused an injury to Stovall. The court denied the motion.

Keisler then testified in his own defense. Keisler said that, on the night before the stabbing, there had been a party at Stovall's house and there were some cars parked on Keisler's property that were blocking his driveway. Keisler stated that he honked his horn to get them to move, and that some people came outside and threw a brick at him. He testified that he left and returned the next morning.

Keisler also said that, on the morning of October 19, he discovered a brick lying through his screen door and through his front room window-the same brick that had been thrown at him the night before-and he wanted to find out who was responsible for the damage. Keisler testified that he went to Stovall's residence to ask about the brick, and someone came to the door and slammed it on him. According to Keisler's testimony, when he knocked on the door a second time, Stovall jumped off the porch, came after him in the yard, and hit him in the head. Keisler also said that he had some tools in his hand when he came over to Stovall's residence and admitted to stabbing Stovall, but said that he was trying to "get [Stovall] off of [him]" because he was scared. Keisler further testified that he did not go over to Stovall's residence with the purpose to harm Stovall, but that he "just wanted to know" the name of the man who had thrown a brick at him the night before.

On cross-examination, Keisler denied that there was a scuffle; he explained that Stovall came out in front of the house and "dole-pop[ped]" him, and that he then stabbed Stovall. He also said that he stabbed Stovall more than once because Stovall "kept punching" him. Furthermore, Keisler denied hiding the knife.

Jason Stovall testified again as a rebuttal witness and denied that he jumped off the porch and "dole-pop[ped]" Keisler. He denied seeing anything in Keisler's hands when he "walked out" into the yard and argued with Keisler. During their rebuttal testimony, Ronnie Dyer and Brandi Hairgrove also denied seeing anything in Keisler's hands when Keisler came over to Stovall's residence on the morning of October 19, 2002.

After the close of all the evidence, Keisler renewed his motion for a directed verdict, which was again denied.

On appeal, Keisler contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because the State failed to show that he purposely caused an injury to Stovall. Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-13-202(a) (Supp. 2001) provides in part that a person commits battery in the second degree if:

(1) With the purpose of causing physical injury to another person, he causes serious physical injury to any person; [or]

(2) With the purpose of causing physical injury to another person, he causes physical injury to any person by means of a deadly weapon other than a firearm[.]

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). A criminal defendant's intent can seldom be proven by direct evidence and must usually be inferred from the circumstances. Watson v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___S.W.3d ___ (June 24, 2004). Because intent cannot be proven by direct evidence, the jurors are allowed to draw upon their common knowledge and experience to infer it from the circumstances. Id. Furthermore, because of the obvious difficulty in ascertaining a defendant's intent or state of mind, a presumption exists that a person intends the natural and probable consequences of his or her acts. Id.

It is well settled that we treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Id. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. We will affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Id. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id. Where there is conflicting evidence, the issue becomes one of credibility to be determined by the trial court. Rankin v. State, 338 Ark. 723, 1 S.W.3d 14 (1999). The trial judge is not required to believe the testimony of any witness, especially that of the accused, since he or she is the person most interested in the outcome of the proceedings. Id.

In this case, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that substantial evidence supports Keisler's conviction. There was testimony that, after being upset by the fact that someone had thrown a brick through his door and his window, Keisler went over to Stovall's house, taunted Stovall, became involved in a physical altercation with him, and stabbed him three times. Ronnie Dyer testified that he carried Stovall into the house after the stabbing, at which time Keisler was "standing there with blood dripping from his hand" and saying, "Come on." According to testimony, when Dyer came back out of the house, he saw Keisler placing a knife between the windshield and the hood of Keisler's vehicle. Moreover, Officer Hilborn said that when he arrived, Keisler was attempting to drive away in the vehicle.

Keisler testified that he stabbed Stovall to get Stovall off of him. Although Keisler claimed that he did so in self-defense, the jury was not required to believe Keisler's account of what happened. From the evidence presented, the jury could have inferred that Keisler purposely caused physical injury to Stovall. We therefore hold that there was sufficient evidence in this case to support the conviction and affirm the trial court's denial of Keisler's motion for a directed verdict.

Affirmed.

Hart and Roaf, JJ., agree.