Wishorne Turner v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CACR08-256
Opinion Delivered October
WISHORNE TURNER
APPELLANT
8, 2008
APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CF-2007-582-5]
V.
HONORABLE JODI RAINES
DENNIS, JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
REVERSED AND DISMISSED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
CRIMINAL LAW – SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE – SINGLE FINGERPRINT ON TRUCK ’S EXTERIOR WAS
NOT SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTIONS.– Evidence was insufficient to support
appellant’s convictions of aggravated robbery, theft of property, and second-degree criminal
mischief where the only evidence of his guilt was a single fingerprint found outside of the
victims’ truck; it was a reasonable conclusion that appellant innocently touched the truck’s
passenger-door handle during a limited time, and in a limited geographical area, while the
truck was in the possession of one of the assailants; the truck was a moveable object, and it
was reasonable to conclude that, rather than touching the truck as he entered the truck during
the aggravated robbery, appellant instead later encountered the truck and touched it at that
time; there was simply no way to determine when or where appellant touched the truck even
during that discrete time and in that limited area.
Appeal from Jefferson Circuit Court; Jodi Raines Dennis, Judge; reversed and remanded.
Hancock, Lane & Barrett, PLLC, by: Charles D. Hancock, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Eileen W. Harrison, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
A jury found appellant, Wishorne Turner, guilty of aggravated robbery, theft of
property, and second-degree criminal mischief. On appeal, he argues that the evidence was
insufficient to support these convictions, because the only evidence of his guilt was a single
fingerprint found on the outside of the victims’ truck. We conclude that the State’s evidence
did not exclude every other reasonable conclusion but that of appellant’s guilt, and therefore,
we reverse and dismiss.
On July 30, 2007, after 9:00 p.m., Kanisher Caldwell and her husband, Morris, arrived
in Pine Bluff after traveling to Kansas City, Missouri, for a family reunion. They made the trip
in their truck, a 2007 Ford F150. While in Kansas City, Kanisher and Morris had the truck
detailed so that it could be photographed against the Kansas City skyline. The truck was hand
washed, scrubbed with brushes and sprayers, and hand dried.
Back in Pine Bluff, Kanisher dropped Morris off at home, dropped their daughter off
with a relative, and returned home. As she exited the truck, a man grabbed her by her neck,
put a gun to her head, and asked for her keys. He pushed her to the house and demanded that
she open the door. She then saw two other men. All three men had their faces covered and
were armed. Morris came to the door of the residence, and the man who held Kanisher
pointed his gun at Morris while the second man pointed his gun at Kanisher. Morris grabbed
Kanisher, pulled her inside the residence, and slammed the door shut. Morris heard the truck
start, and he exited the residence and fired his shotgun as the truck drove away. Neither
Kanisher nor Morris saw who entered the truck. Morris testified that incident occurred at 9:30
or 9:45 p.m.
At 10:17 p.m., Pine Bluff police spotted the truck traveling at a high rate of speed and
-2-
CACR08-256
running a stop sign. During the police pursuit, the driver jumped from the truck. After the
truck came to a stop, police noted there were no other occupants. Twenty to thirty minutes
later, police found Demante Dorn in a shed. According to one officer, the truck was twenty
or twenty-five blocks away from the Caldwell’s home.
Two fingerprints were found on the exterior of the truck. A fingerprint found on the
driver’s door matched one of Dorn’s fingerprints. Dorn was also identified as one of the
assailants based on Morris’s identification of Dorn’s clothing and his identification of clothing
and a weapon discovered in the shed. A fingerprint was also found “[o]ver on the door
handle” on the passenger door, and that fingerprint matched one of appellant’s fingerprints.1
According to the police, appellant’s address shown on his state identification card was not
close to where the Caldwells resided or where the truck was recovered.
Appellant argues that the State’s evidence was insufficient evidence to support the
convictions, because the only evidence of his guilt was a single fingerprint and the jury’s
verdict was based on speculation and conjecture. He observes that his fingerprint was found
on the exterior—not inside—the truck and that the victims did not testify that they saw
anyone place a hand on the passenger side of the truck.
On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and
determine whether substantial evidence supports the judgment. King v. State, 100 Ark. App.
208, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007). When the State’s case is made entirely of circumstantial
1
The exhibit notes that the fingerprint was found on the passenger-side door to the
left of the handle.
-3-
CACR08-256
evidence, if it leaves the fact-finder to speculation and conjecture, then the evidence is
insufficient as a matter of law. Id. Two equally reasonable conclusions about what happened
raise only a suspicion of guilt, and on appeal, we may consider whether the record, viewed
in the light most favorable to the State, presented this situation and required the fact-finder
to speculate to convict the defendant. Id.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, the victims testified that
the truck was in their possession while they traveled out of state, the truck was thoroughly
detailed while they were out of state, and they remained in possession of the truck at all times
prior to the commission of the crimes. The truck was out of their possession only while it was
in the possession of one of the persons who committed the crimes, and that was at night for
only thirty to forty-five minutes until the truck was spotted traveling at a high rate of speed
by police some twenty or twenty-five blocks away, apparently in high-speed flight from the
area in which the crime was committed. Appellant’s fingerprint was found on the exterior
passenger-door handle, a point of entry into the truck, and appellant did not reside in either
the area where the truck was taken or where it was recovered by police.
We acknowledge that appellant’s fingerprint on the passenger-door handle could only
have been placed on the truck during the brief time, late hour, and limited geographical area
while the truck was in the possession of one of the assailants, even though appellant did not
reside in the area where the truck was taken or recovered. We conclude, however, that the
State’s evidence failed to exclude every other reasonable conclusion but that of appellant’s
guilt.
-4-
CACR08-256
The victims did not testify that they observed anyone enter the truck on the passenger
side. Thus, this case is unlike Howard v. State, 286 Ark. 479, 695 S.W.2d 375 (1985), where
a masked man was seen touching the place where a fingerprint was discovered and the
fingerprint was found to be the defendant’s. And because the fingerprint was not found in the
interior of the truck, it is unlike those cases where the conviction was affirmed because the
fingerprint was found inside the structure. Brown v. State, 310 Ark. 427, 837 S.W.2d 457
(1992); Phillips v. State, 88 Ark. App. 17, 194 S.W.3d 222 (2004), aff’d on other grounds, 361
Ark. 1, 293 S.W.3d 630 (2005); Ebsen v. State, 249 Ark. 477, 459 S.W.2d 548 (1970).
Here, the fingerprint was found on the exterior of the truck, and this court has
previously found that a fingerprint found on the exterior of a structure is insufficient to
support a conviction. Smith v. State, 34 Ark. App. 150, 806 S.W.2d 391 (1991); Holloway v.
State, 11 Ark. App. 69, 666 S.W.2d 410 (1984). Moreover, unlike several cases affirming
convictions on fingerprint evidence, there is no corroborating evidence and appellant’s
convictions rest entirely on the strength of a fingerprint. Compare Medlock v. State, 79 Ark.
App. 447, 89 S.W.3d 357 (2002); Lamb v. State, 74 Ark. App. 245, 45 S.W.3d 869 (2001)
(revocation of suspended sentence); Ashe v. State, 57 Ark. App. 99, 942 S.W.2d 267 (1997)
(affirmed on tie vote); Tucker v. State, 50 Ark. App. 203, 901 S.W.2d 865 (1995).
It is a reasonable conclusion that appellant innocently touched the truck’s passengerdoor handle during that limited time, in that limited geographical area, while the truck was
in the possession of one of the assailants. The truck was a movable object, and it is reasonable
to conclude that, rather than touching the truck as he entered the truck during the aggravated
-5-
CACR08-256
robbery, appellant instead later encountered the truck and touched it at that time. There is
simply no way to determine when or where appellant touched the truck even during that
discrete time and limited area. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient
to support the convictions, as the State’s evidence failed to exclude every other reasonable
conclusion but that of appellant’s guilt. See Standridge v. State, 310 Ark. 408, 837 S.W.2d 447
(1992) (holding that a thumbprint on an easily movable cup found beside a tent that was
located six to fifteen feet away from marijuana plants was insufficient to prove that the
defendant was manufacturing marijuana, as there was no evidence suggesting when or where
the defendant touched the cup). Therefore, we reverse and dismiss.
Reversed and dismissed.
G LADWIN and H EFFLEY, JJ., agree.
-6-
CACR08-256
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.