Anderson v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CACR08-458
Opinion Delivered
MYRON NEWJEAN ANDERSON, JR.
APPELLANT
January 28, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE ASHLEY
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-06-197-4A; CR-06-197-4B]
V.
HONORABLE DON GLOVER,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
Appellant was found guilty by a jury of five counts of committing a terroristic act and
one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm arising out of the shooting of seven
persons in a nightclub. He was sentenced to serve 110 years in the Arkansas Department of
Correction. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed
verdicts of acquittal. He also argues that the trial court erred in overruling his objection to
the addition of a second panel of prospective jurors and in denying his motion for a new trial
asserting prejudice resulting from the seating of the second panel of jurors.
We first consider appellant’s argument concerning the sufficiency of the evidence.
There was evidence that appellant was a felon, that he was in the nightclub shooting a firearm
on the night in question, and that seven people were shot. Appellant’s entire argument on this
point is stated as follows: “Appellant argues that testimony from the witnesses was so
inconsistent that it was unreliable.”
Appellant neither cites authority nor advances any argument for the untenable assertion
that mere inconsistency in the testimony of different witnesses is of itself so destructive of the
jury’s ability to discern the truth that it somehow renders otherwise-sufficient evidence
insufficient to support a criminal conviction. Nor are we told what testimony appellant is
referring to or which elements of the offenses were therefore lacking sufficient proof. This
argument, the same as that advanced in appellant’s directed-verdict motion, merely states that
the evidence is insufficient; it does not preserve for appeal issues relating to a specific
deficiency such as insufficient proof on the elements of the offense. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c);
see Smith v. State, 367 Ark. 274 , 239 S.W.3d 494 (2006). Even had a specific point for appeal
been preserved, it is axiomatic that an argument on appeal is insufficient if it simply invites
the court to search the record generally for errors. Lavaca Telephone v. Arkansas Public Service
Commission, 65 Ark. App. 263, 986 S.W.2d 146 (1999); see also Barr v. State, 336 Ark. 220,
984 S.W.2d 792 (1999); Dixon v. State, 260 Ark. 857, 545 S.W.2d 606 (1977). We hold
appellant’s directed-verdict motion to be inadequate and his argument on appeal to be
frivolous; consequently, we do not address this issue.
Appellant’s remaining argument is likewise without merit. He asserts, without citation
to authority, that we must reverse because the trial judge summoned a second panel of
prospective jurors without informing appellant that he had done so. Appellant cites no
authority that would require the trial court to inform appellant of this action prior to trial.
Furthermore, the record shows that appellant’s counsel was given ample opportunity to
interview the jurors prior to their being seated, that he did not exercise all of his peremptory
-2-
CACR08-458
strikes, and that he affirmatively informed the trial court that he did not disapprove of the
jurors actually selected. Appellant waived any objection after concurring in the makeup of
the jury, Hill v. State, 331 Ark. 312, 962 S.W.2d 762 (1998), and, in any event, could not
show prejudice because he failed to exercise all of his peremptory strikes. See Willis v. State,
334 Ark. 412, 977 S.W.2d 890 (1998).
In his motion for a new trial, appellant alleged that one of the seated jurors “is believed
to be related to a victim in the case to a degree not known at the time of selection.”
However, the name of the juror was not mentioned. The name of the victim was not
mentioned. The name of the person who “believed” there to be a different degree of
relationship is not mentioned. Whether the degree of relationship “believed” to exist is closer
or more remote is not mentioned. Without a more precise allegation by appellant or a
showing on his part as to how he was harmed, the circuit court had no basis to grant a new
trial. See King v. State, 312 Ark. 89, 847 S.W.2d 37 (1993).
Affirmed.
H ART and B ROWN, JJ., agree.
-3-
CACR08-458
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.