Johnny Wright v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS  NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  JOHN B. ROBBINS, JUDGE  DIVISION IV  CACR 07­435  DECEMBER 12, 2007  JOHNNY WRIGHT  APPELLANT  APPEAL FROM THE UNION  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT  [NO. CR­2005­0624­1]  V. HONORABLE  HAMILTON  HOBBS  SINGLETON, JUDGE  STATE OF ARKANSAS  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED  Appellant Johnny Wright was accused of committing a terroristic act, in violation of  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  5­13­310  (Repl.  2006).  A  jury  in  Union  County  found  him  guilty,  resulting in a twelve­year prison sentence.  He appeals, arguing that there is insufficient  evidence to support his conviction, which he challenged at trial by means of a motion for  directed verdict.  Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal to our court seeking appellate  review.  We affirm.  On appeal, we treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency  of the evidence.  When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we will  affirm the conviction if there is substantial evidence to support it, when viewed in the light most  favorable  to  the  State.  Bangs  v.  State,  338  Ark.  515,  998  S.W.2d  738  (1999).  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 mere speculation  or  conjecture.  The  evidence  may  be  either  direct  or  circumstantial.    Only  evidence  supporting the verdict will be considered.  Circumstantial evidence can provide the basis to  support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent  with any other reasonable conclusion.  Id.  Whether the evidence excludes every hypothesis  is left to the jury to decide.  McDole v. State, 339 Ark. 391, 6 S.W.3d 74 (1999);Williams  v. State, 338 Ark. 97, 991 S.W.2d 565 (1999).  The trier of fact is free to believe all or part  of a witness's testimony.  Moreover, the credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury and  not for this court.  Bangs, supra.  The jury may resolve questions of conflicting testimony  and inconsistent evidence and may choose to believe the State's account of the facts rather  than the defendant's. Stewart v. State, 338 Ark. 608, 999 S.W.2d 684 (1999).  As  charged  in  this  case,  appellant  was  accused  of  committing  a  terroristic  act  by  shooting at an occupiable structure with the purpose to cause injury to a person or damage  to property.  Ark. Code Ann. § 5­13­310(a)(2).  This trial concerned gunshots fired at the  house of David Livingston, at 601 Rock Island Right of Way, El Dorado, Arkansas, on the  morning of September 8, 2005.  In his brief, appellant contends that the testimony given by  the occupants of the house was in some ways conflicting, and that there was no other proof  indicating that appellant committed this crime.  We disagree.  To the extent that there were  conflicts, if any, that was an issue to be resolved by the jury.  Stewart v. State, supra. ­2­  At  trial,  appellant  admitted  that  he  had  walked  to  the  Livingston  residence  that  morning  around  7:00  a.m.,  seeking  to  settle  a  disturbance  between  his  teenage  son  and  someone who lived at that particular residence.  Appellant denied that he had a gun or that  he  shot  at  the  residence.    Appellant  stated  that  he  heard  gunshots  as  he  walked  away.  Appellant called other witnesses, including his wife and son, who testified that they did not  see him with a gun that morning.  Nonetheless, when the evidence is viewed in the light most  favorable to the State, as we are required to do on appeal, it demonstrated evidence from  which the jury could determine that appellant shot at the house with the purpose to cause  personal or property damage.  The family members were familiar with appellant, and Tina Livingston testified that  she saw appellant aim a gun toward the house.  Tina kicked the front door closed.  A bullet  was  found  lodged  in  the  wall  inside  the  house.  Kimberly  Wade  (Tina’s  daughter)  was  present in the house standing near a window, and she testified that she watched appellant fire  a gun as he stood outside the house.  Kimberly said she could see the flare come out of the  gun  as  it  fired,  and  she  observed  the  bullet  come  toward  the  window.    One  bullet  was  discovered lodged in the window screen.  Tina and Kimberly testified that appellant was the  only person in the vicinity at the time of the shooting.  Police took photographs of bullets that  were lodged in the residence.  The jury had before it direct, eyewitness accounts that appellant raised and fired a gun  at the Livingston residence while there were persons inside.  This is sufficient to sustain the  verdict of guilty. ­3­  Affirmed.  PITTMAN, C.J., and BIRD, J., 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.