Woodson v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 602
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CACR08-1491
Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER 23, 2009
CHARLES KEVIN WOODSON
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPEAL FROM THE RANDOLPH
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-2008-19]
HONORABLE HAROLD S. ERWIN,
JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge
Appellant Charles Woodson appeals his September 17, 2008 conviction by a Randolph
County jury on charges of commercial burglary, arson of property worth at least $100,000,
and misdemeanor theft of property.
He was sentenced to a total of twenty years’
imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant’s sole argument on
appeal is that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. We affirm.
Facts
On November 8, 2007, law-enforcement officers initiated an investigation regarding
a fire that had occurred the previous evening at 166 Café. The investigating officers
determined that a forced entry into the building was made through the removal of an airconditioning unit and that the point of origin of the fire was inside the restaurant in the area
between the register and a desk behind the counter. Officers also discovered spots adjacent
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 602
to the point of origin where the floor material had burned more significantly than other parts
of the floor, possibly indicating the use of accelerants. A one-gallon Crown White fuel can
was found near the building, and debris from the burned area tested positive for ethanol and
a medium-based alkene product, such as candle oil or some type of lighter fluid. A small prybar was found near the cash-register, and a saw was discovered on top of the air-conditioning
unit. The tray from the cash-register drawer was also missing and was never recovered.
Officers received information indicating that Ms. Patsy Adams and Ms. Sandra (a/k/a
Sissy) Wilson had been observed at the location of the 166 Café around midnight on the
night of the fire. Officers interviewed Ms. Adams and Ms. Wilson, which prompted them
to speak with Ms. Lucinda (a/k/a Cindy) Burleson, Ms. Christina Luther, and appellant. All
four women initially denied any involvement or knowledge of the incident, but officers
eventually learned that the saw discovered at 166 Café belonged to Ms. Adams. Ms. Adams
subsequently admitted her involvement and agreed to cooperate in the investigation.
Additionally, Ms. Wilson—appellant’s cousin who at the time was on parole—also
agreed to assist in the investigation by allowing officers to place a digital-recording device in
her vehicle to record conversations between appellant and herself. She drove to appellant’s
residence and picked him up, while at the same time Special Agent Wendel Jines and Deputy
Jim Milam were listening to the conversation in their vehicle. Ms. Wilson asked appellant
whether he retrieved the Coleman can (meaning the Crown White can), and they discussed
items from which appellant wiped fingerprints and buried in the woods.
-2-
CACR08-1491
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 602
Ms. Wilson admitted to being with appellant, Ms. Burleson, Ms. Luther, and Ms.
Adams on the night of the fire at the home she shared with Ms. Burleson. She explained that,
after having dinner and playing darts, she went with Ms. Adams and appellant to Ms. Adams’s
house. Ms. Wilson testified that she noticed Ms. Adams drawing something that turned out
to be the floor plan of 166 Café—where Ms. Adams had previously worked. Appellant
indicated to her that he planned to rob 166 Café. After indicating that she did not want to
be involved, Ms. Wilson agreed to go with Ms. Adams and appellant to get cigarettes.
Appellant took a hand saw from Ms. Adams’s residence with him on the errand.
Ms. Wilson testified that Ms. Adams drove to 166 Café, during which time she noticed
that Ms. Adams and appellant had walkie-talkies. Ms. Adams dropped appellant off at a house
just past the café, and he took the saw and walkie-talkie with him. The two women left,
drove to the store, bought cigarettes, and returned to pick up appellant. When they did not
see him, they parked a little way up the road from 166 Café. Approximately one hour after
dropping him off, appellant contacted them via the walkie-talkie, and as Ms. Adams pulled
in near 166 Café, Ms. Wilson noticed officers approaching. The two women alerted
appellant via the walkie-talkie and then pulled up to the officer’s vehicle. Ms. Adams
explained that her car was overheating and they were getting water. At the conclusion of the
conversation, the two women returned to Ms. Adams’s house.
Subsequently, Ms. Wilson and Ms. Adams went back to search for appellant, but
returned to Ms. Wilson’s house at approximately 4:00 a.m. after having no success in locating
-3-
CACR08-1491
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 602
him. Upon their arrival, appellant came out the back door, bloody and scratched from having
run through the woods, through barbed wire, and into a tree. He indicated that he had “tore
up the cash register and stuff up.” Upon Ms. Adams’s urging that something had to be done,
appellant stated that “the only thing I can do is torch the place.” Ms. Wilson then drove
them to Ms. Adams’s house, where Ms. Adams retrieved the Crown White fuel can and gave
it to appellant. Ms. Wilson then drove to 166 Café where appellant left with the fuel can.
After the women drove around a few minutes, appellant jumped back into the vehicle. Ms.
Wilson took Ms. Adams to her house, and she and appellant returned to hers. The following
morning, appellant told Ms. Wilson he had taken about $200 and some jewelry but had
stashed it out in the woods.
Ms. Adams gave a similar account of the incident, adding information about appellant
taking the saw, pry-bar, and Crown White fuel can from her house. She indicated that when
he got out of the vehicle with rubber gloves, the pry-bar, the saw, and a flashlight, there was
no question in her mind that he was planning to rob 166 Café. She indicated that she told
appellant that he had to take back what he had stolen. Subsequently, appellant indicated to
Ms. Adams that he had gotten some money, but not how much, and that he had hidden it
in the woods.
It is undisputed that both Ms. Wilson and Ms. Adams were charged in this case and
were accomplices in the incident. Both negotiated deals with the State that spared them from
serving any jail time.
-4-
CACR08-1491
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 602
Ms. Burleson, Ms. Wilson’s roommate, testified that she was with Ms. Wilson, Ms.
Adams, and appellant earlier on the night of November 7, 2007, but that she went to bed
early. She stated that she was unaware of what had occurred until the following morning
when she saw appellant’s injuries and heard his account of the incident. She stated that
appellant told her that the robbery was Ms. Adams’s idea. Ms. Burleson also overheard
appellant telling Ms. Adams that he had only taken about $200. She also discussed the issue
of fingerprints being discovered, and explained that appellant assured her that only Ms.
Adams’s fingerprints might be discovered on her saw that he had left at the scene. Ms.
Burleson testified that she also witnessed Ms. Wilson burn the map of 166 Café that was in
Ms. Adams’s handwriting.
Although she initially lied to police to try to protect Ms. Wilson, Ms. Burleson also
agreed to wear a recording device. Apparently the equipment she used was faulty, and
officers were unable to obtain sufficient information from her attempt. She was not charged
in this incident, even for obstruction of justice related to her initial lies to police; however,
she may have received a lighter sentence on a methamphetamine charge in another county
because of her cooperation.
Ms. Luther testified that she saw appellant around 8:00 a.m. on November 8, 2007.
He explained to her that the gash between his nose and two black eyes occurred when he was
leaving 166 Café and ran under a barbed-wire fence. Appellant admitted that he broke into
166 Café and that he ran from the building after Ms. Wilson alerted him via the walkie-talkie
-5-
CACR08-1491
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 602
that the police were approaching. He admitted to Ms. Luther that he stole several hundred
dollars and explained that he left a saw behind that would have Ms. Adams’s fingerprints on
it. Ms. Luther acknowledged that she initially lied to law-enforcement officers in an attempt
to protect Ms. Wilson. She was not charged in this case and claimed that she was not offered
a deal in exchange for testifying.
Additionally, at the jury trial held on September 16-17, 2007, Jean Grissom, owner
of the business part of 166 Café, testified that a $121,000 loss resulted from the fire. Irma Jean
Taylor, owner of the building that housed 166 Café, testified that a $61,538.92 loss resulted
from the fire.
After the State rested, appellant’s counsel moved for a directed verdict on various
charges arguing, that the State failed to prove—other than through the testimony of codefendants—that appellant had the intent to commit a theft while in 166 Café or that
anything was actually stolen from that location. The same argument was made with respect
to the charges of arson and theft of property, specifically that no evidence beyond the
testimony of the two co-defendants supported the charges. Additionally, with respect to the
arson charge, appellant’s counsel argued that the State failed to lay a proper foundation to
establish that Ms. Grissom and Ms. Taylor were qualified to testify as to the value of the
monetary loss incurred. The circuit court denied the motions.
The defense rested without presenting any witnesses and reasserted the motion for
directed verdict on the same grounds. The circuit court again denied the motion. The jury
-6-
CACR08-1491
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 602
returned guilty verdicts on all counts, and appellant was sentenced as previously set forth. The
judgment and commitment order was filed on September 17, 2007. Appellant filed a timely
notice of appeal on October 14, 2007, and this appeal followed.
I. Denial of Motion for Directed Verdict
A. Standard of Review
A motion for a directed verdict is treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence. Coggin v. State, 356 Ark. 424, 156 S.W.3d 712 (2004). The test for determining
the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence,
direct or circumstantial. Id. Evidence is substantial if it is of sufficient force and character to
compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture.
Id. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, considering
only that evidence that supports the verdict. Id.
Weighing the evidence and assessing the credibility of the witnesses are matters for the
fact-finder. Bush v. State, 90 Ark. App. 373, 206 S.W.3d 268 (2005). The jury is free to
believe all or part of any witness’s testimony and resolves questions of conflicting testimony
and inconsistent evidence. See Gikonyo v. State, 102 Ark. App. 223, 283 S.W.3d 631 (2008).
Reconciling conflicts in the testimony and weighing the evidence are matters within the
exclusive province of the jury. See Mitchem v. State, 96 Ark. App. 78, 238 S.W.3d 623 (2006).
B. Discussion
-7-
CACR08-1491
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 602
Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-89-111(e)(1)(A) (Repl. 2005) provides that
a conviction or an adjudication of delinquency cannot be had in any case of felony
upon the testimony of an accomplice, including in the juvenile division of circuit
court, unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant or the
juvenile with the commission of the offense.
Additionally, subsection (B) states that the corroboration is not sufficient if it merely shows
that the offense was committed and the circumstances thereof. It must be evidence of a
substantive nature since it must be directed toward proving the connection of the accused
with a crime and not toward corroborating the accomplice testimony. Stephenson v. State, 373
Ark. 134, 282 S.W.3d 772 (2008). The corroborating evidence need not be sufficient
standing alone to sustain the conviction, but it must, independent from that of the
accomplice, tend to connect to a substantial degree the accused with the commission of the
crime. Id.
The test is whether, if the testimony of the accomplice were completely eliminated
from the case, the other evidence independently establishes the crime and tends to connect
the accused with its commission. Stephenson, supra. The corroborating evidence may be
circumstantial so long as it is substantial; evidence that merely raises a suspicion of guilt is
insufficient to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony. Id. The presence of an accused in the
proximity of a crime, opportunity, and association with a person involved in the crime in a
manner suggestive of joint participation are relevant facts in determining the connection of
an accomplice with the crime. Passley v. State, 323 Ark. 301, 915 S.W.2d 248 (1996).
-8-
CACR08-1491
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 602
Appellant maintains that there was no direct evidence, other than the self-serving
circumstantial testimony of the State’s witnesses that support charges that he committed any
crime on November 7, 2007. He urges that all of the witnesses for the State were admitted
accomplices to the crime. He reminds us that each of them admitted repeatedly lying to law
enforcement officers. He suggests the State’s main witnesses were under the influence of
methamphetamine at the time of their involvement in the 166 Café incident. Further, he
claims that it is not hard to ascertain that their testimony was “bought” by the authorities in
exchange for leniency. As such, he urges that his convictions are not supported by substantial
evidence.
We disagree. First, we note that the jury was instructed that both Ms. Wilson and Ms.
Adams were accomplices in this case. The testimony of both Ms. Wilson and Ms. Adams
clearly implicates appellant in the incident, but there is sufficient corroborating evidence from
other witnesses to support each of the respective charges.
(1) Commercial Burglary
With respect to the commercial-burglary conviction, Arkansas Code Annotated section
5-39-201(b)(1) (Repl. 2006) provides that a person commits commercial burglary if he or she
enters or remains unlawfully in a commercial occupiable structure of another person with the
purpose of committing in the commercial occupiable structure any offense punishable by
imprisonment. In this case, there was a commercial burglary that occurred, as testified to by
Special Agent Jines. He explained that the restaurant had been forcibly entered, and that a
-9-
CACR08-1491
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 602
saw and pry-bar were found in and around the building. He also testified that the money tray
from the cash-register drawer was missing and never found.
Additional testimony that corroborated that of Ms. Wilson and Ms. Adams came from
Ms. Burleson, who was not charged as an accomplice in this case. She testified that appellant
told her the morning after the robbery that the incident was Ms. Adams’s idea. She also
explained that she overheard appellant telling Ms. Adams that he had taken about $200. She
testified that she also discussed the issue of fingerprints being discovered on items used in the
robbery and that appellant assured her that only Ms. Adams’s fingerprints might be discovered
on her saw that he had left at the scene. Ms. Burleson stated that she witnessed Ms. Wilson
burn the map of 166 Café that was in Ms. Adams’s handwriting.
Another non-accomplice witness, Ms. Luther, testified that she saw appellant around
8:00 a.m. on November 8, 2007. Ms. Luther testified that appellant explained that the gash
between his nose and two black eyes occurred when he was leaving 166 Café and ran under
a barbed-wire fence. She stated that appellant admitted to her that he broke into 166 Café
and that he ran from the building after Ms. Wilson alerted him via the walkie-talkie that
police officers were approaching. He admitted to her that he stole several hundred dollars and
explained that he left a saw behind at the scene that would have Ms. Adams’s fingerprints on
it.
-10-
CACR08-1491
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 602
When viewed in the light most favorable to the State, substantial evidence supports
appellant’s conviction on the charge of commercial burglary. Accordingly, we affirm on this
count.
(2) Arson
With respect to the arson conviction, Arkansas Code Annotated section
5-38-301(a)(1)(A) (Supp. 2007) provides that a person commits arson if he or she starts a fire
or causes an explosion with the purpose of destroying or otherwise damaging an occupiable
structure or motor vehicle that is the property of another person. Subsection (b)(6) provides
that arson is a Class Y felony if the property sustains damage in an amount of at least
$100,000.
The physical evidence discovered by law enforcement officers, as well as Special Agent
Jines, supports the conclusion that 166 Café was destroyed by arson. In addition to the
evidence of forcible entry, officers determined that the point of origin of the fire was inside
the restaurant, centered in the area between the register and a desk behind the counter. The
cash register was heavily damaged by the fire and heat. Officers also discovered spots adjacent
to the point of origin where the floor material had burned more significantly than other parts
of the floor, possibly indicating the use of accelerants. A one-gallon Crown White gas fuel
can was found near the building, and debris from the burned area tested positive for ethanol
and a medium-based alkene product, such as candle oil or some type of lighter fluid.
Although the testing did not indicate the presence of camp fuel, Special Agent Jines testified
-11-
CACR08-1491
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 602
that it could have completely burned up in the fire and that he found no source of accidental
ignition. He specifically testified that based upon his training and experience as an arson
investigator, he did not believe that the fire was “in any way” accidental.
Specific evidence as to the value of the monetary loss incurred as a result of the arson
was presented at trial. Ms. Grissom, who owned the business part of 166 Café, testified that
a $121,000 loss resulted from the fire. Additionally, Ms. Taylor, owner of the building that
housed 166 Café, testified that a $61,538.92 loss resulted from the fire. Although the
preferred method of establishing value is through expert testimony, see Coley v. State, 302 Ark.
526, 790 S.W.2d 899 (1990), it is also well settled that an owner of property is competent to
testify as to the value of his own property. See Sullivan v. State, 32 Ark. App. 124, 798
S.W.2d 110 (1990).
Although the physical evidence and testimony from Special Agent Jines did not
specifically connect appellant with the arson, when viewed in conjunction with the
accomplice testimony from Ms. Wilson and Ms. Adams and appellant’s own admissions
regarding the robbery to Ms. Burleson and Ms. Luther, there was sufficient evidence for the
jury to conclude that appellant did in fact commit arson. While this evidence is not as strong
as the evidence supporting the burglary and theft convictions, in that appellant denied blame
in the transcript of the recorded conversation between Ms. Wilson and himself on February
4, 2008, we also note that he expressed his hope that law enforcement officers would focus
on another suspect who had been involved in several area arson cases. Additionally, appellant
-12-
CACR08-1491
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 602
specifically stated in that transcribed conversation that he wiped his fingerprints off of the fuel
can and buried it in the woods.
(3) Theft of Property
Regarding the misdemeanor-theft-of-property charge, Arkansas Code Annotated
section 5-36-103(a)(1) (Supp. 2007) provides that a person commits theft of property if he or
she 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 the property. Theft of property is a misdemeanor if the value of the property is
$500 or less. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-103(b)(4)(A) (Supp. 2007).
Special Agent Jines testified that the money tray of the cash-register drawer was missing
and never recovered, although he could not specify how much, if any, money had been in
the tray at the time it was taken. Appellant was overheard by Ms. Burleson telling Ms. Adams
that he only got a couple hundred dollars from 166 Café, and Ms. Luther testified that he
specifically told her that he stole several hundred dollars from 166 Café. We hold that
sufficient corroborating evidence exists with respect to the theft of property charge, and we
affirm that conviction as well.
Affirmed.
GLOVER and HENRY, JJ., agree.
-13-
CACR08-1491
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.