Johnson v. State

George Anthony JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-284                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 23, 1996


1.   Motions -- denial of motion for directed verdict -- factors on
     review. -- The denial of a motion for directed verdict is
     treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence; the
     test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is
     whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict;
     substantial evidence must be forceful enough to compel a
     conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion and
     conjecture; on appellate review, it is only necessary for this
     court to ascertain that evidence which is most favorable to
     appellee, and it is permissible to consider only that evidence
     which supports the guilty verdict. 
 
2.   Evidence -- challenge to sufficiency -- scissors are clearly
     a deadly weapon. -- Appellant's argument that scissors are not
     a deadly weapon was without merit where there could be no
     serious challenge to the proposition that scissors are capable
     of causing death or serious physical injury; in fact, the
     court has affirmed homicide cases where scissors were the
     weapon of choice in causing death; scissors clearly fell
     within the definition of a deadly weapon.

3.   Evidence -- threat of physical force upon victim with deadly
     weapon clearly shown -- appellant's argument meritless. --
     Appellant's argument that the State failed to show that he
     threatened to employ physical force upon the victim with a
     deadly weapon was meritless where the victim not only
     testified that appellant stabbed her with a pair of scissors,
     but she also stated that he threatened her with a gun, telling
     her that if she tried to leave the apartment, he would shoot
     her; as appellant represented that he had a gun, this
     representation was sufficient to sustain his conviction for
     aggravated robbery.  

4.   Evidence -- evidence of threat to employ physical force upon
     victim with deadly weapon found -- evidence was sufficient to
     support appellant's conviction. -- Where there was sufficient
     evidence of appellant's use of a threat to employ physical
     force upon the victim with a deadly weapon, the evidence was
     sufficient to support appellant's conviction of aggravated
     robbery and theft of property.


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division; Marion
Humphrey, Judge; affirmed.
     William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by:  C. Renae Ford,
Deputy Public Defender, for appellant. 
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  David R. Raupp, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Bradley D. Jesson, Chief Justice.
     The appellant, George Anthony Johnson, was convicted of
aggravated robbery and misdemeanor theft of property and was
sentenced as a habitual offender to forty years' imprisonment.  His
sole allegation on appeal is that the trial court erred in denying
his motion for directed verdict.  We affirm.
     The following evidence, viewed in a light most favorable to
the State, was elicited at trial.  Amy Rollins and Jennifer
Anderson, scholarship volleyball players attending the University
of Arkansas at Little Rock, were at a party at the South Oaks
Apartments during the evening hours of February 26, 1994.  As they
were leaving the party with two of their teammates, Tonya Wolfe and
Adonia Guevera, they met a man standing outside the complex.  The
man, who was later identified as the appellant, told the women that
he was from California, was new in town, and wanted to meet some
people.  Wolfe and Guevera were from Napa Valley and San Diego,
California, respectively, and began talking to appellant about
their homestate.  After talking to him for several minutes,  the
women went inside a unit that all but Rollins shared with Michelle
Wilson, another fellow UALR student and teammate.
     The following afternoon, appellant knocked on the door of the
apartment.  Wilson answered.  Appellant introduced himself,
explaining that he was from California and that he knew Wolfe and
Guevera.  Wilson told appellant that her roommates had gone to get
a pizza.  She felt comfortable as appellant casually walked inside. 
The two engaged in casual conversation before appellant asked to
use the bathroom.   
     When appellant exited the bathroom, he was wielding a pair of
scissors.  He attempted to stab Wilson in the neck and arm while
demanding money and jewelry.  Though Wilson explained that she had
neither, appellant proceeded to go through dresser drawers, jewelry
boxes, and cupboards.  He took Anderson's watch and ring and
Wilson's video cassette recorder.  When Wilson tried to run out the
door, appellant stabbed her in the arm with the scissors.  He told
her he had a gun and threatened that if she tried to leave the
apartment again, he would shoot her.  Appellant then ordered Wilson
to go into the bathroom and shut the door.  When Wilson was sure
appellant had left the apartment, she went to a nearby unit and
called police.
     Nearly two weeks after the incident, Wilson, Anderson, and
Rollins were separately shown a photographic lineup.  Wilson
positively identified appellant as her assailant.  Anderson and
Rollins likewise identified appellant as the man they had met the
night before the incident.  
     We treat the denial of a motion for directed verdict as a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.  We examine such
challenges under the following guideposts:
          The test for determining the sufficiency of the
     evidence is whether there is substantial evidence to
     support the verdict; substantial evidence must be
     forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the
     other beyond suspicion and conjecture.  On appellate
     review, it is only necessary for this court to ascertain
     that evidence which is most favorable to appellee, and it
     is permissible to consider only that evidence which
     supports the guilty verdict. 
 
Choate v. State, 325 Ark. 251, 925 S.W.2d 409 (1996); citing King
v. State, 323 Ark. 671, 916 S.W.2d 732 (1996).  At the close of the
State's case, appellant moved for a directed verdict as follows:
     [W]e would move for a directed verdict based on the
     sufficiency of the evidence.  That, number one, scissors
     are not a deadly weapon; and number two, that they are
     not -- they have not shown that he threatened to employ
     physical force upon her with a deadly weapon.

Appellant renewed his motion at the close of all the evidence. 
While he presents numerous arguments in his brief as to why his
directed-verdict motion should have been granted, we limit our
review to the two grounds appellant presented to the trial court. 
See Brown v. State, 316 Ark. 724, 875 S.W.2d 828 (1994). 
     Appellant first argues that scissors are not a deadly weapon. 
A person commits aggravated robbery if, with the purpose of
committing a felony misdemeanor theft or resisting apprehension
immediately thereafter, he employs or threatens to immediately
employ physical force upon another, and is armed with a deadly
weapon or represents by word or conduct that he is so armed.  
Ark. Code Ann.   5-12-102 and 5-12-103 (Supp. 1995).  A deadly
weapon is a firearm or "[a]nything that in the manner of its use or
intended use is capable of causing death or serious physical
injury." Ark. Code Ann.  5-1-102(4) (Supp. 1995).   There can be
no serious challenge to the proposition that scissors are capable
of causing death or serious physical injury.  In fact, we have
affirmed homicide cases where scissors were the weapon of choice in
causing death. See e.g., McLendon v. State, 316 Ark. 688, 875 S.W.2d 55 (1994)(appellant's conviction for capital murder affirmed
where she stabbed her father with a pair of scissors, and her co-
defendants stabbed him with a knife); Riggins v. State, 253 Ark.
1007,490 S.W.2d 124 (1973) (appellant's voluntary manslaughter
conviction affirmed where she stabbed the victim with a pair of
scissors).  In short, scissors clearly fall within the definition
of a deadly weapon.  Appellant's argument is meritless.      
     Appellant also preserved the argument that the State failed to
show that he threatened to employ physical force upon victim
Michelle Wilson with a deadly weapon.  This contention is equally
meritless.  Not only did Wilson testify that appellant stabbed her
with a pair of scissors, she also stated that he threatened her
with a gun, telling her that if she tried to leave the apartment,
he would shoot her.  As appellant represented to Wilson that he had
a gun, this representation was sufficient to sustain his conviction
for aggravated robbery.  See Clemmons v. State, 303 Ark. 354, 796 S.W.2d 583 (1990).  Based on the foregoing, we conclude that the
evidence was sufficient to support appellant's conviction of the
crimes charged. 
     Affirmed.