Dierks v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CACR08-297
Opinion Delivered
May 20, 2009
WAYNE ALAN DIERKS
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
FOURTH DIVISION
[NO. CR-2006-4727]
HONORABLE JOHN LANGSTON,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
Wayne Alan Dierks was convicted of committing a terroristic act for shooting a
crossbow bolt through the rear window of the victim’s vehicle. He was sentenced to eight
years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. He argues on appeal that the evidence was
not sufficient to support the finding of guilt. We affirm.
We will not second-guess credibility determinations made by the fact-finder when
reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to sustain a criminal conviction. Stone
v. State, 348 Ark. 661, 74 S.W.3d 591 (2002). Instead, we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State, considering only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. We
will affirm the conviction if there is substantial evidence to support it. Hughes v. State, 74 Ark.
App. 126, 46 S.W.3d 538 (2001). Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force and
character to compel a conclusion one way or the other with reasonable certainty, without
resorting to speculation or conjecture. Crutchfield v. State, 306 Ark. 97, 812 S.W.2d 459
(1991).
Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-13-310(a)(1) (Supp. 2007) provides that a person
commits a terroristic act if, without justification, he shoots at or in any manner projects an
object at a conveyance, which is being operated or which is occupied by another person, with
the purpose to cause injury to another person or damage to property. Here, it is undisputed
that the victim, driving a Chevrolet Camaro, merged onto Interstate 630 and, in the process,
cut off the appellant’s vehicle. It is also undisputed that appellant became angry and followed
the victim past the terminus of the expressway, stopping at a traffic light abreast and to the
right of the Camaro. Finally, it was undisputed that appellant had a crossbow and crossbow
bolts in his vehicle and that appellant pointed the crossbow at the victim during the course
of the disturbance.
There was testimonial and photographic evidence to show that the Camaro’s rear
window was broken while at the stop light, and that the window bore a large hole in the
center and a smaller, circular hole on the side closest to appellant’s vehicle. The victim
testified that the window broke while appellant’s vehicle was next to him, and that appellant
then passed him and turned right. The victim then called the police and followed appellant.
The victim testified that he followed appellant to a parking lot where appellant turned his
vehicle to face the victim. He also testified that he saw appellant re-cock the crossbow and
point it at him.
-2-
CACR08-297
Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support a finding that he shot a
crossbow bolt at the victim’s vehicle because no one saw him do so and no bolt was ever
found. However, in light of the evidence recited above, we think that the fact-finder could
properly infer that the enraged appellant shot a bolt at the victim’s vehicle with the purpose
of causing damage to persons or property. The evidence is circumstantial, but circumstantial
evidence will suffice where it can lead to no other reasonable hypothesis than the guilt of the
accused. Conley v. State, 308 Ark. 70, 821 S.W.2d 783 (1992).
Appellant also argues that the evidence demonstrated that he did not shoot at the
victim’s vehicle because the crossbow was cocked when the police arrived and because
appellant testified that it would have been impossible for him to cock the 175-pound-draw
crossbow while seated in his vehicle. However, in light of the victim’s testimony that he saw
appellant do so, this was a question of credibility for the fact-finder to resolve. See Gaye v.
State, 368 Ark. 39, 195 S.W.3d 370 (2006).
Affirmed.
R OBBINS and G RUBER, JJ., agree.
-3-
CACR08-297
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.