Christopher Benard West v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case

Download PDF

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS D. P. MARSHALL JR., Judge DIVISION II CACR06-949 23 May 2007 CHRISTOPHER BENARD WEST, APPELLANT v. AN APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [CR2006-73] STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE THE HONORABLE JOHN W. LANGSTON, JUDGE AFFIRMED Christopher Benard West appeals his convictions for robbery, theft of property, and resisting arrest. West first contends that substantial evidence does not support his convictions. He argues that the pre-trial photo line-up in which the victim (Bobby Earls) initially identified him was unnecessarily suggestive, unreliable, and violated his due process rights. To preserve his challenge to the pre-trial identification, however, the law required West to make a contemporaneous objection to Earls’s identification of him at trial. Edwards v. State, 360 Ark. 413, 423, 201 S.W.3d 909, 916–17 (2005). West did not do so. He therefore waived this point. West does not renew on appeal the arguments he made at trial for a directed verdict. We therefore reject his substantial-evidence challenge. King v. State, 323 Ark. 671, 674–75, 916 S.W.2d 732, 734 (1996). Second, West argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to grant his day-of-trial motion for a continuance. West sought additional time to locate a witness he said could prove someone other than West was driving Earls’s car soon after the robbery. Although he did not know the witness’s name, West stated that he thought the witness worked at the Exxon station on the corner of Kanis Road and John Barrow Road in Little Rock. The circuit court denied West’s motion because of its tardiness and uncertainty about whether the witness could ever be procured. We see no abuse of discretion in the circumstances. Anthony v. State, 339 Ark. 20, 22, 2 S.W.3d 780, 781 (1999). Affirmed. VAUGHT and HEFFLEY, JJ., agree. 2

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.