Fitzgerald v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No.
CACR08-1072
DALE FITZGERALD,
Opinion Delivered 27
MAY 2009
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-2007-100-G]
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE
THE HONORABLE J. MICHAEL
FITZHUGH, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
D. P. MARSHALL JR. , Judge
Both lawyers told the circuit court that one issue in this revocation case boiled
down to he said/she said. Dale Fitzgerald, the appellant, said that he left Tasha Griffith
this voicemail on her cell phone: “[I]f anybody gets Stacey”—Fitzgerald’s ex-wife
with whom he was trying to reconcile—“any dope or gets her back on dope I will
whip their butt.” Griffith said that Fitzgerald’s voicemail was different. According to
her, this was the message: “Tasha, this is Dale. You need to tell Stacey to call me.
I am headed over there to kill you and your family because she is not speaking to me.”
The circuit court revoked Fitzgerald’s suspended sentence for making a threatening
phone call and not paying fines and court costs.
We affirm the revocation. Whom to believe was the circuit court’s call after
seeing and hearing the witnesses. Billings v. State, 53 Ark. App. 219, 223, 921 S.W.2d
607, 609 (1996). Fitzgerald attacks Griffith’s version of the message. He emphasizes
these points: The voicemail was not played for the circuit court; the State did not
offer any testimony from the police officer for whom Griffith allegedly played the
message; and Griffith had a motive to lie. But these are all matters of Griffith’s
credibility and the weight of her testimony. If the circuit court believed Griffith’s
version—a death threat, then Fitzgerald’s words constituted terroristic threatening.
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-301(a)(1)(A) (Repl. 2006). Even if the court believed
Fitzgerald’s version, his words threatened physical harm, which satisfied the statute and
supported revocation. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-301(b)(1).
Fitzgerald also contends that the State did not prove that his threat left Griffith
fearful or in immediate danger. The statute does not require either one. Whether the
voicemail was as he said or she said, Fitzgerald made a terroristic threat. This violation
of one of the terms of Fitzgerald’s suspended sentence justified revocation. Rudd v.
State, 76 Ark. App. 121, 124, 61 S.W.3d 885, 888 (2001); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4309(d) (Repl. 2006).
Affirmed.
HENRY, J., agrees.
PITTMAN, J., concurs.
-2-
-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.
