Mannis v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 817
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
CACR09-172
No.
Opinion Delivered
December 9, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-08-25, CR-08-26]
C. SCOTT MANNIS
APPELLANT
V.
HONORABLE DAVID G. HENRY,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
LARRY D. VAUGHT, Chief Judge
At a bench trial, appellant C. Scott Mannis was convicted of harassment in two separate
cases.1 He was fined $355 in each case and sentenced to two, concurrent ten-day jail sentences.
Mannis makes three arguments on appeal: 1) that his conviction was not supported by sufficient
evidence because he lacked the requisite intent to harass the victim; 2) that the evidence used
to convict him was inadequate because the victim’s testimony was not corroborated; 3) that the
trial court erroneously relied on testimony from prior cases in its weighing of Mannis’s
credibility.2
Although the cases and convictions were separate they were tried together, and
Mannis consolidates his sufficiency-of-the-evidence arguments on appeal.
1
Unfortunately, his last two claims of error are made for the first time on appeal, and
arguments not made to the trial court below will not be heard for the first time on appeal.
Rains v. State, 329 Ark. 607, 611, 953 S.W.2d 48, 51 (1997). Additionally, parties may not
2
1
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 817
As to Mannis’s argument that he lacked the intent to harass the victim, the evidence is
reviewed in the light most favorable to the State, and the conviction is affirmed if the verdict is
supported by substantial evidence. Larue v. State, 34 Ark. App. 131, 132, 806 S.W.2d 35, 36
(1991). Substantial evidence is evidence that is of sufficient force and character that it will, with
reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion without resort to speculation or conjecture. Id. at 132,
806 S.W.2d at 36. And, as to the particular offense in question, a person commits the offense
of harassment if, “with purpose to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, without good cause,
he places a person under surveillance by remaining present outside that person’s school, place
of employment, vehicle, other place occupied by that person, or residence, other than the
residence of the defendant, for no purpose other than to harass, alarm, or annoy.” Ark. Code
Ann. § 5-71-208(a)(6) (Repl. 2005).
At trial, Kay Bishop (the victim), testified that on June 17, 2007, she observed Mannis
looking into her living room window and taking pictures. She told the court that he circled her
house and workplace on a daily basis. According to her testimony, on one occasion (when she
and her daughters were outside grilling) Mannis circled her house until 7:30 p.m. She also
claimed that Mannis would park behind her house and remain there for hours and that he would
park near her workplace and watch her. Bishop testified that she purchased a firearm to protect
her children and herself from the threat, and that on several occasions she notified the police
about Mannis’s behavior. In response, Mannis denied having any intent to harass Bishop, and
change the grounds for an objection on appeal and are bound by the scope and nature of the
objections and arguments presented at trial. Id. at 611, 953 S.W.2d at 51.
2
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 817
he disputed much of what Bishop claimed that he had done.
However, the trial court was free to discount all of Mannis’s testimony as credibility
determinations are for the judge to make as the trier of fact. Carter v. State, 360 Ark. 266, 269, 200
S.W.3d 906, 908 (2005). On appeal, we will not weigh the evidence of one side against the other;
we simply determine whether the evidence supports the verdict. Johnson v. State, 70 Ark. App.
343, 346, 19 S.W.3d 66, 69 (2000). The evidence introduced at trial is more than sufficient to
support Mannis’s harassment convictions.
Affirmed.
HART and ROBBINS, JJ., agree.
3
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.
