Foley v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 727
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CACR10-395
Opinion Delivered
November 3, 2010
JAMES LEE FOLEY
V.
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
FOURTH DIVISION
[NO. CR2008-2880]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HONORABLE HERBERT WRIGHT,
JUDGE
APPELLANT
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOSEPHINE LINKER HART, Judge
James Lee Foley was found guilty in a Pulaski County Circuit Court jury trial of
residential burglary. He was sentenced as an habitual offender to thirty years in the Arkansas
Department of Correction. On appeal, Foley argues that the trial court erred in denying his
directed-verdict motion. We affirm.
Foley was tried on a single count of residential burglary stemming from a July 3, 2008
home invasion of the residence of Colleen Hubble. At trial, Foley preserved the issue of
whether the State presented sufficient evidence that he was the perpetrator by arguing in his
directed-verdict motion, “Specifically, the State has failed to make a prima facie case that James
Foley went into the house of Colleen Hubbell on July 3rd without permission with the intent
to commit a crime, specifically theft of property.” On appeal, he notes that the State failed to
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 727
produce any physical evidence that he was actually in the residence. We find this argument
unpersuasive.
An appeal of the denial of a directed-verdict motion is a challenge to the sufficiency of
the evidence. Coggin v. State, 356 Ark. 424, 156 S.W.3d 712 (2004). When we review a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we affirm the trial court if the verdict is supported
by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Jackson v. State, 363 Ark. 311, 214 S.W.3d 232
(2005). Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or
the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and we
consider only evidence supporting the verdict. Id.
The evidence presented at trial on this issue is as follows. Ms. Hubbell testified that she
was getting ready for work on July 3, 2008, when she encountered Foley standing outside her
bedroom. He “charged” toward her and grabbed her purse. Foley held her while she struggled
with him. In the course of the struggle, Ms. Hubbell came “face to face” with Foley. By
kicking and using her elbows, she “shimmied” out of his arms and activated her intruder alarm,
which summoned the police. According to Ms. Hubbell, she retreated to her bedroom, but
Foley pursued her. She grabbed the iron that she had just used to press her slacks and began
hitting Foley, striking him “probably seven or eight times.” She knocked him back and was
able to close and lock her bedroom door. Later, according to Little Rock police officer Edwin
Brooks, Ms. Hubbell “immediately” picked Foley out of the six-person photo array that he
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 727
showed her. Foley was arrested later that day, and he had a fresh wound on his shoulder. Ms.
Hubbell made an in-court identification of Foley as the intruder.
This evidence is sufficient to support the verdict. Ms. Hubbell unequivocally identified
Foley as the perpetrator. It is settled law that, where the identity of the perpetrator is at issue,
unequivocal testimony identifying the appellant as the culprit, without further corroboration,
is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Stipes v. State, 315 Ark. 719, 870 S.W.2d 388 (1994).
Accordingly, the lack of physical evidence is of no moment.
Affirmed.
R OBBINS and G RUBER, 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.
