Craig v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 309
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CACR09-669
COURTNEY CRAIG
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
Opinion Delivered April
14, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE PHILLIPS
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2006-33]
HONORABLE L.T. SIMES, II, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
The circuit court placed appellant, Courtney Craig, on probation for ten years for
committing the crime of first-degree battery. The State subsequently filed a petition to revoke
appellant’s probation, asserting that appellant had violated a condition of his probation by
committing the crimes of rape, aggravated residential burglary, and possession of a firearm by
a felon. Further, the petition alleged that he violated another condition of his probation by
possessing a firearm. The circuit court revoked appellant’s probation on the grounds set forth
in the State’s petition. On appeal, appellant argues that the circuit court’s decision was clearly
against the preponderance of the evidence. We affirm.
In revocation proceedings, the burden is on the State to prove by a preponderance of
the evidence that the defendant has violated a condition of his probation. Jones v. State, 52
Ark. App. 179, 916 S.W.2d 766 (1996). Where the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged
on appeal from an order of revocation, we will not reverse the circuit court’s decision unless
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 309
the court’s findings are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id. In making our
review, we defer to the superior position of the circuit court to determine questions of
credibility and the weight to be given to the evidence. Id.
In support of its revocation petition, the State presented the testimony of the victim
of the rape and aggravated burglary. The victim testified that on April 8, 2008, she awoke at
12:53 a.m. and found appellant, whom she had known “all [her] life,” standing over her. She
asked how he had entered her house, and he told her that he had knocked on the door and
that the door came open. The victim later discovered, however, that her kitchen window had
been broken open, and she concluded that appellant had entered her house through the
kitchen window.
The victim asked appellant if he needed a ride home, and he declined. Appellant asked
her if she was “going to give him some.” She told him “no” and said, “Courtney, you know
we’re not like that.” She asked him three or four times to leave, but he would not do so. The
victim opened the door and began crying and told appellant that she would call the police if
he did not leave. Appellant, she testified, “took a gun out on me and told me that I was going
to give him some.” He pointed the gun at her and told her to close the door and stop crying
before someone heard her crying. She described the gun as a handgun. She testified, “I just
did what he told me to do, [be]cause he had a gun. And I didn’t want him to do anything to
[me and my children]. And he raped me and I begged him not to.” She testified that she
asked him to wear a condom, which he did. Afterwards, appellant still refused to leave, and
she testified that she “had to take him home, because he wouldn’t leave.” Further, she
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 309
testified, “I begged him not to kill me. I told him that I wouldn’t tell [any]body. I swore on
my kids that I wouldn’t tell [any]body.” He told her that if she “ever said anything that he
would come back and kill me and my kids.”
The victim called her mother at about four or five o’clock that morning, and her
mother told her that she needed to report the incident to the police. She contacted the police
at about nine or ten o’clock that same morning. She explained that she did not want to
contact the police because of appellant’s threats.
Appellant argues that the circuit court’s decision to revoke his probation was clearly
against the preponderance of the evidence. He asserts that the evidence was insufficient to
support the element of “forcible compulsion” for the crime of rape, because the victim never
testified that appellant threatened her with the gun or used physical force on her. We observe
that a person commits the crime of rape if he engages in sexual intercourse with another
person by forcible compulsion. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(1) (Supp. 2009). “Forcible
compulsion” includes “physical force or a threat, express or implied, of death or physical
injury to . . . any person.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(2) (Supp. 2009). Appellant further
notes that the victim testified that she gave him a ride home and that she did not contact law
enforcement until the next morning. And he asserts that absent proof of rape, there was no
aggravated residential burglary.
After deferring to the circuit court’s determinations of credibility and weight, we
conclude that the court’s decision was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
According to the victim, appellant “took a gun out on me and told me that I was going to
-3-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 309
give him some” and that appellant pointed a gun at her and told her to close the door and to
stop crying before someone heard her crying. Appellant’s pointing of a firearm at the victim
was evidence of an implied threat of death or physical injury. Thus, the circuit court’s
decision to revoke on this basis was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.
And accordingly, appellant’s assertion that the crime of aggravated residential burglary was
unproven because there was no proof of rape, is without merit.
Appellant further asserts that the evidence was insufficient to support revocation on the
basis that he possessed a firearm, because there was no testimony that a weapon was ever
found and because the firearm allegation was proven solely by the victim’s testimony. We
observe that no person shall possess or own any firearm who has been convicted of a felony.
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-73-103(a)(1) (Supp. 2009). To “possess” is to “exercise actual dominion,
control, or management over a tangible object.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-102(15) (Supp. 2009).
Here, the victim testified that appellant had a gun. Given our deference to the circuit court’s
determinations of weight and credibility, we cannot say that the court’s decision was clearly
against the preponderance of the evidence.
Affirmed.
ROBBINS and HENRY, JJ., agree.
-4-
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.