Broderick Allen v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  DIVISION IV  CACR05­1129  MARCH  15, 2006  BRODERICK ALLEN  APPELLANT  V. APPEAL  FROM  THE  PULASKI  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT  [NO. CR­2005­000209]  HON. WILLARD PROCTOR, JR.,  JUDGE  STATE OF ARKANSAS  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge  The Pulaski County Circuit Court found appellant Broderick Allen guilty of robbery  in a bench trial and sentenced him to seven years’ imprisonment at the Arkansas Department  of Correction.  Appellant’s sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred in overruling  his objection based on relevance during the testimony of the State’s witness.  We affirm.  On December 23, 2004, Pulaski County Deputy Sheriff Jody Gieber was working off  duty as a security officer at Dillard’s in the Park Plaza Mall in Little Rock.  Gieber was  watching the cameras in the security office, which is located in Dillard’s on the east side of  the  mall,  when  he  observed  appellant  entering  Dillard’s  on  the  west  side  of  the  mall.  Appellant came inside Dillard’s with a white shopping bag into which he stuffed a woman’s  shirt  and  two  purses.  According  to  Gieber,  it  looked  as  though  appellant  was  leaving  Dillard’s and entering the rest of the mall.  Gieber rushed to meet appellant and encountered  him near Victoria’s Secret, where he asked to speak to appellant regarding the stolen items.  Gieber was preparing to handcuff  appellant when appellant suddenly broke free and ran  toward  the  mall’s  main  entrance.    Gieber  attempted  to  subdue  appellant,  but  instead  he slipped and almost fell.  Appellant continued to run, looking over his shoulder at Gieber.  Because he was not watching  where  he was going, appellant collided with a man and a  column and then fell into a railing.  Appellant’s bungling allowed Gieber to catch up to him,  and Gieber again attempted to overpower appellant.  Appellant hit Gieber in the face hard  enough that Gieber tasted blood in his mouth.  Appellant continued to run with Gieber still  following him, and Little Rock Police Officer Antonio Metcalf, who was also working off  duty at the mall, tackled appellant.  Appellant continued to resist while the officers were  trying to handcuff him.  Joshua Larimer, an employee of Dillard’s who was on his break,  testified that he saw appellant strike Gieber and saw the aftermath.  Appellant’s  version  of  events  differed  drastically.    He  admitted  that  he  went  to  Dillard’s  to  shoplift  and  that  he  left  with  items  without  paying for  them.  According  to  appellant, when Gieber approached him outside of Dillard’s, he asked the officer “why was  he doing all this.”  Appellant testified that Gieber began spraying him with mace and that he  ran in order to avoid the fumes from the mace.  According to appellant, another officer then  blind­sided him, and four or five cops were on top of him.  Appellant said the officers took  him to the loss prevention office where they interrogated him, beat him, and sprayed mace  on him before taking him to jail.  Appellant said that he did not fight with Gieber because  he had a “brand new” knee and hip, but rather Gieber fought with him.  The testimony at issue in this appeal occurred when Gieber explained what happened  when he and other officers escorted appellant to the security room.  Gieber stated:  This is at the point where I ended up having some complications myself.  I had a bad  reaction, I guess, to – in reference to my medicine.  I take blood pressure medicine,  and I am ADHD, which I have to take a medicine for that also.  And combination of  that and the amount of weight I had lost, I hadn’t had anything to eat – since I hadn’t  had anything to eat that day, it caused a bad reaction with my medicine.  I ended up  having a hard time with breathing.  Defense counsel objected to Gieber’s testimony on the basis that it was not relevant.  Gieber responded, “I am explaining why I had to be put on a stretcher and transported out ­2­  on a stretcher into an ambulance and taken to Baptist emergency room, because my blood  pressure was 90 over 50 and my heart rate was 148.  According to the doctor, that’s pretty  close to death.”  The trial court sustained defense counsel’s objection as to what the doctor  said but overruled it as to the rest.  On appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in admitting Gieber’s testimony  because it was irrelevant. “Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make  the  existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action  more  probable  or  less  probable  than  it  would  be  without  the  evidence.  Ark.  R.  Evid.  401.  According to Ark. R. Evid. 402, evidence that is not relevant is not admissible.  Although  relevant, evidence may be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the  danger of unfair prejudice.  Ark. R. Evid. 403.  The balancing of probative value against  prejudicial effect is a matter left to the trial court’s sound discretion.  Sasser v. State, 321  Ark. 438, 902 S.W.2d 773 (1995).  Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding evidentiary  issues,  including the  admissibility  of  evidence,  and  those  decisions  will  not  be  reversed  absent an abuse of discretion.  Neal v. State, 320 Ark. 489, 898 S.W.2d 440 (1995).  Appellant cites Ark. Code Ann. § 5­12­203, which provides that a person commits  robbery  if,  with  the  purpose  of  committing  a  felony  or  misdemeanor  theft  or  resisting  apprehension  immediately  thereafter,  he  employs  or  threatens  to  immediately  employ  physical force upon another. Appellant argues that the State simply had to prove that he used  force in the commission of the offense and that Gieber’s health problems had nothing to do  with appellant’s actions.  He contends that Gieber’s testimony was irrelevant and that he  should be given a new trial.  Gieber’s  testimony  had  at  least  marginal  relevance  in  that  Gieber  distinguished  between the harm he sustained from the force employed by appellant when he hit him and  the complications of a personal nature that resulted in his being taken from the mall in an ­3­  ambulance.  We cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting Gieber’s  testimony.  The circumstances of a bench trial are different with respect to relevant evidence  because a judge is better equipped to sort out what is pertinent to the issue at hand.  Walls  v.  State,  336  Ark.  490,  986  S.W.2d  397  (1999).    During  a  bench  trial,  a  trial  judge  can  consider  evidence  only  for  its  proper  purpose,  and  there  is  no  risk  of  prejudice  by  the  mention of contested evidence. Id. In any event, appellant admitted that he went to Dillard’s  with the purpose of committing theft; Gieber and Metcalf testified regarding appellant’s  resistence to apprehension by them; and Gieber and Larimer testified that appellant used  physical force in that he hit Gieber in the face.  When the evidence of guilt is overwhelming,  as it is here, and the error is slight, we can declare that the error was harmless and affirm.  See Cobb v. State, 340 Ark. 240, 12 S.W.3d 195 (2000).  Affirmed.  GRIFFEN  and NEAL, JJ., agree. ­4­ 

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.