Stacy R. King v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Judge Miller’s unpublished opinion for  December 5, 2007 DIVISION II  CACR06­0952  December 5, 2007  STACY R. KING  v.  AN APPEAL FROM THE UNION  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT  [CR­05­249­1]  STATE OF ARKANSAS  APPELLEE  HONORABLE HAMILTON HOBBS  SINGLETON, JUDGE  APPELLANT  AFFIRMED  A Union County jury found appellant Stacy King guilty of committing three counts  of delivery of a controlled substance, cocaine. He was sentenced to serve 180 years in prison  and  ordered  to  pay  $25,000  in  fines  for  each  count.    On  appeal,  King  challenges  the  sufficiency of the evidence supporting his convictions.  We affirm.  In December 2004, the El Dorado Police Department used a cooperating individual,  Charles Robinson, to make three controlled cocaine buys from King.  The buys occurred on  December  7,  10,  and  20.  Prior  to  each  buy,  the  officers  photocopied  the  buy  money,  searched Robinson and his vehicle, and fitted Robinson with audio and video surveillance  equipment.  After  each  buy,  Robinson  met  the  officers,  turned  over  his  purchase,  and  recounted what occurred during the buy.  CACR06­952  At King’s trial, Robinson identified King as the person who sold him cocaine on each  of the three occasions.  Randy Connelly, an officer with the El Dorado Police Department,  testified that, following each buy, the surveillance equipment was secured and the video of  the buy was downloaded onto a CDR and edited to depict only what transpired during the  drug  transaction.  He  stated  that  the  video  and  audio  corroborated  and  verified  what  Robinson said had occurred during each buy.  A DVD depicting the condensed version of  each buy was introduced into evidence. Connelly testified that the DVD reasonably depicted  what was on the long version of the videos.  At  the  close  of  the  State’s  case,  King  moved  for  directed  verdict  challenging  the  sufficiency of the evidence to support the charges.  He argued that the video failed to depict  an exchange of drugs and money.  The trial court denied King’s motion and King renewed  his motion at the close of his case.  The trial court again denied the motion and King was  convicted  and  sentenced.  King  now  argues  that  the  trial  court  erred  when  it  denied  his  motion for directed verdict.  A  motion  for  directed  verdict  is  a  challenge  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence.  Wingfield v. State, 363 Ark. 380, 214 S.W.3d 843 (2005).  On appeal from the denial of a  motion for directed verdict, the sufficiency of the evidence is tested to determine whether the  verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial.  Hutcheson v. State, 92  Ark. App. 307, 213 S.W.3d 25 (2005). Circumstantial evidence may provide the basis for  support of the appellant’s conviction, but it must be consistent with the appellant’s guilt and  inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion.  Id.  Substantial evidence is that which 2  CACR06­952  is forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion one way or the other  and permits the trier of fact to reach a conclusion without having to resort to speculation and  conjecture.  Dodson v. State, 358 Ark. 372, 191 S.W.3d 511 (2004).  This court considers  only the evidence supporting the guilty verdict, and the evidence is viewed in the light most  favorable to the State.  Hutcheson, supra.  On appeal, King challenges Robinson’s and Connelly’s credibility.  This argument  is  not  preserved  for  appeal  because  King failed  to  raise  it  at  trial.  We  do  not  consider  arguments raised for the first time on appeal, and a party is bound on appeal by the nature  and scope of the objections and arguments presented at trial.  Thomas v. State, 92 Ark. App.  425, 214 S.W.3d 863 (2005).  Even if we were to address King’s argument, we would affirm because it is the job  of the jury, as fact finder, to weigh inconsistent evidence and to make determinations in  credibility.  Brown  v.  State,  95  Ark.  App.  348,  195  S.W.3d  370  (2006).  Here,  the  jury  properly reviewed the testimony of Robinson and Connelly and found it credible.  When the  testimony is considered, along with the video of the transactions, it is clear that the jury did  not have to resort to speculation and conjecture to find King guilty.  Therefore, we affirm.  Affirmed.  MARSHALL  and VAUGHT, JJ., agree. 3  CACR06­952 

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.