Gray v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CACR 08-1439
Opinion Delivered
PHILLIP GRAY
APPELLANT
V.
SEPTEMBER 9, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE ASHLEY
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-2007-226-4]
HONORABLE DON GLOVER,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
M. MICHAEL KINARD, Judge
Appellant, Phillip Gray, appeals from his conviction by an Ashley County jury on a
charge of theft of property with a value between $500 and $2500. On appeal, appellant
argues that the State failed to produce substantial evidence as to the value of the property and
that the State failed to produce substantial evidence that he acted with the requisite intent.
We affirm.
The property in question is a trailer. Steven Langford testified that he purchased the
trailer for his mother on September 16, 2004. The bill of sale from Langford’s purchase
reflects a purchase price of $1000. Langford testified that his mother is the owner of the
property in Ashley County upon which the trailer was placed and that he is the caretaker of
the property. Langford further testified that he did not authorize anyone to remove the trailer
from his mother’s property. Langford stated that the last time he was on his mother’s property
prior to the trailer being taken, the trailer was in substantially the same condition as it was
when he purchased it.
Deputy Fred Hogan with the Ashley County Sheriff’s Department testified that he
drove past Langford’s mother’s property on September 30, 2007, and the trailer was on the
property. Deputy Hogan stated that he went by the property again on October 3, 2007, and
the trailer was not on the property. There was an old tarp that had been covering the trailer
that was lying on the ground where the trailer had been located. Deputy Hogan testified that
he found a piece of a Master Lock lying on the ground in the area and that the lock looked
as though it had been cut through with bolt cutters.
The State introduced a statement from appellant. In his statement, appellant stated that
in February 2007, a man named Harvey Poe came to his house in an attempt to sell him pills.
Poe asked appellant if he wanted to buy a trailer. After looking at the camper, appellant
agreed to buy the camper for $1000. Appellant paid Poe $700 of the purchase price before
Poe died in September 2007. After Poe died, appellant decided to take the camper because
he thought Poe’s family would take the camper and he would lose his $700. Appellant took
the camper to his house and parked it there.
At the close of the State’s evidence and again at the close of all of the evidence,
appellant moved for directed verdict on the basis that the State failed to prove the value of the
trailer and failed to prove that appellant acted with the requisite intent. The trial court denied
both motions. Following the guilt phase of the trial, the jury returned a verdict of guilty and
sentenced appellant to 144 months’ imprisonment in the Department of Correction as a
habitual offender. This timely appeal followed.
Appellant is appealing from the denial of his motions for directed verdict. A motion
-2-
for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Tomboli v. State, 100
Ark. App. 355, 359, 268 S.W.3d 918, 920-21 (2007). The test for determining sufficiency
of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence. Id. Substantial
evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond
suspicion or conjecture. Id. Only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. Id.
When a defendant makes a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the
appellate court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Id.
Appellant’s first argument on appeal is that the State failed to produce substantial
evidence that the trailer had a value of more than $500 and less than $2500. We disagree.
Steven Langford testified that he paid $1000 for the trailer in 2004. Langford also testified
that, at the time it was taken, the trailer was in substantially the same condition as it was when
he purchased it. Although the preferred method of establishing value is through expert
testimony, the price paid by an owner can be used to determine market value of property
when the purchase is not too remote in time and bears a reasonable relation to the present
value. Williams v. State, 65 Ark. App. 176, 182, 986 S.W.2d 123, 127 (1999). In addition,
appellant’s statement to police indicated that he had negotiated to buy the trailer for $1000
in February 2007. This evidence was sufficient to allow the jury to conclude that the trailer
had a value greater than $500 and less than $2500.
Appellant’s second argument on appeal is that the State failed to prove that he acted
with the requisite intent. A person commits the offense of theft of property if the person
knowingly takes or exercises unauthorized control over, or makes an unauthorized transfer
of an interest in, the property of another person, with the purpose of depriving the owner of
-3-
the property. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-103 (Supp. 2007). Appellant argues that the State
failed to produce substantial evidence indicating that he knowingly took or exercised
unauthorized control over the property of another person with the purpose of depriving the
owner of the property. We disagree.
Appellant admitted in his statement to the police that he had the trailer in his
possession. Steven Langford testified that no one had permission to remove the trailer from
his mother’s property. The unexplained, unsatisfactory, or improbable explanation for
possession of recently stolen property may be considered as evidence of guilt of theft of
property. See Ward v. State, 280 Ark. 353, 356, 658 S.W.2d 379, 381 (1983). Although
appellant argued that he took the trailer from a third party who represented himself as the true
owner of the property, the jury, as factfinder, was not required to believe appellant’s
explanation of the events. Brown v. State, 35 Ark. App. 156, 160, 814 S.W.2d 918, 921
(1991). Regardless of the circumstances under which appellant came into possession of the
trailer, the evidence submitted to the jury showed that appellant was, at no time, in lawful
possession of the trailer. The evidence was sufficient for the jury to conclude that appellant
possessed the property with the intent to deprive the owner of the property.
Affirmed.
HENRY and BAKER, 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.
