Derek Sales v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR07-1308
Opinion Delivered December
DEREK SALES,
4, 2008
APPELLANT,
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
APPEAL FROM THE BRADLEY
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CR2005-24-3,
HON. ROBERT BYNUM GIBSON,
JR., JUDGE,
SUBSTITUTED OPINION.
JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice
Derek Sales appeals his convictions for capital murder and aggravated robbery and his
respective sentences of death and life imprisonment. We find no error and affirm. Because
Sales was sentenced to death and to life imprisonment, jurisdiction lies in this court under
Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(2).
The jury was presented with the following facts. Willie York was murdered in his
home shortly after 11:30 p.m. on April 16, 2005. York ran his own small business of selling
liquor out of his home. Bradley County is a dry county, and he sold beer by the can. His
business was described by witnesses as “bootlegging.” York used a cigar box as a cash register
and kept the cigar box close to his person. Sales was aware of this, and he purchased several
beers from York on the day of his murder. York also kept personal papers in the cigar box.
York suffered from advanced rheumatoid arthritis and needed assistance in caring for
himself. He weighed 102 pounds, had little use of his hands, and could not walk. He spent
most of his time in his living room where he had a bed and a recliner. While awake, he sat
in his recliner. While there, he wished to be able to look outside his home, so he always kept
the shades up until he was moved from his recliner and placed in bed for the night. He
typically went to bed at 10:00 p.m., at the close of his business day.
Sales arrived at the York home on April 16 at about 1:00 p.m. He had been there
often over the last year. That day, Sales asked York’s wife Gracie if they would be gone that
evening. Sales left the York home a couple of times that day but each time returned.
That night, York’s family left the home at about 6:30 p.m. to attended a basketball
tournament. York remained at home. Sales was present, and no other person was there with
York when the family left.
The family kept track of how York was doing throughout that evening by phone calls
and visits. His granddaughters left the tournament and brought him dinner about 9:00 p.m.
Sales was there.
His daughter Lisa visited York’s home about 11:15 p.m. and stayed
approximately fifteen minutes. Sales was there. At that time, York was in his recliner, and
the window blinds were still up. When Lisa arrived, Sales was talking on the phone. Gracie
York testified that her phone billings showed that Sales made phone calls to a woman in Pine
Bluff. His girlfriend Shirley Klein, who lives in Pine Bluff, testified that Sales called her from
York’s home in the late evening of April 16. She specifically recalled speaking with Sales on
the night of April 16 to April 17. A clerk at the nearby Exxon station recalls Sales in the store
when his shift started at about 11:30 p.m. New packages of cigarettes were found at the
-2-
CR07-1308
crime scene.
Shortly after Lisa’s visit ended at about 11:30 p.m., she saw her nieces at the nearby
Exxon station. She instructed them to go put York to bed. As they drove up to the house,
they were surprised that they could not see him. York should have been sitting in his recliner
because he had no way to move to the bed. The lights should have been on. A window
shade had fallen from its place at the top of the window. They drove closer to the house, and
through the window they saw a figure moving about inside. This frightened them, and they
called York on their cell phones, but he did not answer. The granddaughters called 911 and
then Lisa.
One of the granddaughters, Amanda York, recognized the figure in the house as Sales.
Amanda honked the horn, but there was no response. Another granddaughter, Ebony York,
also recognized Sales. Amanda reported that he moved to the back of the house, and then
back to the front where he peered out the window. She saw his face at this time.
Lisa arrived and could see through the open window that York was not in his chair or
his bed. She then saw Sales. She tapped on the window, but Sales did not respond. He was
bent over something she could not see. Lisa ran back toward the Exxon station and found
her cousin Ricky Hampton. He ran to the house and looked in the window to see Sales bent
over something with his arms fully extended while calling out York’s name. Hampton went
to the back door but found it locked. He proceeded toward the front of the house. At about
this time, Warren police arrived. Officer Tim Cox shined his flashlight into a window and
saw a figure crouched as if trying to stay out of view. He also tried the back door. Upon
-3-
CR07-1308
hearing someone say “he’s coming out the front door,” Cox went around front. There he
confronted Sales on the front porch. When someone said “he’s dead,” Sales bolted and Cox
pursued. Cox tackled Sales, and by this time Ricky Hampton was present and helped Cox
subdue Sales.
Warren police officer Robbie Ashcraft arrived and placed cuffs on Sales. Lisa shouted
“I thought you were my Daddy’s friend.” According to Officer Jason Michaels, Sales
responded with “something like ‘he wasn’t nothin to me.’” Michaels then removed Sales
from the scene.
York was found lying on the floor with his head in a pool of blood under the recliner
footrest. An ambulance was called, and York was pronounced dead at the scene. York was
transported to a nearby funeral home and from there to the state crime lab, where an
examination revealed that he died of three possible causes: strangulation, blunt force trauma
to the head and chest, and a puncture of the jugular vein. A kitchen knife was found not far
from where York lay. Testing revealed that blood on the knife matched York’s blood.
When Sales was arrested, he had a large number of coins in his pockets. More coins
were found under the seat in the car that was used to transport him to jail. The cigar box was
found at the crime scene. It contained twenty-eight cents and no personal papers. A piece
of paper containing York’s niece’s Medicaid number was found in Sales’s property when he
was processed at the Warren jail facility shortly after his arrest. York’s daughter Sharon
testified that the piece of paper had been kept in York’s cigar box. A pack of cigarettes of the
type smoked by York was also found on Sales’s person. Blood was found on Sales’s shoes,
-4-
CR07-1308
sock, and pants. Blood on the shoes and knife were tested and “the DNA profile that was
obtained from the swab (blood taken from the knife) as well as the swab from the shoe was
consistent with or matched the DNA profile that was obtained from the blood sample from
York.”
York’s wife Gracie testified that York kept two wallets near him at all times, and that
in one he had a $100 bill; however, no $100 bill was found in Sales’s possession. Further,
there was evidence that Sales was present when York said he would purchase his
granddaughter new wheels for her car that would cost about $1000. As Sales points out in
his reply brief, the evidence in this case did not make it clear that Sales knew how York
would pay for them. Gracie testified that they had $1300 in cash in the home at that time
that would be used for that purpose. The $1300 was in the living room under a scanner
sitting atop the television. According to Gracie, so far as she knew, only she and York knew
where the money was.
Sales first argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motions for a directed
verdict on both charges. A directed-verdict motion is a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence.
Flowers v. State, 373 Ark. 127, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2008). A challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence asserts that the verdict was not supported by substantial evidence.
See Flowers, supra. Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character that
without resorting to speculation and conjecture compels with reasonable certainty a
conclusion one way or the other. Id. We review the evidence in a light most favorable to the
State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. We affirm where the
-5-
CR07-1308
record reveals that substantial evidence sustains the verdict. See id. Further, circumstantial
evidence may constitute substantial evidence to support a conviction. Ross v. State, 346 Ark.
225, 57 S.W.3d 152 (2001). The longstanding rule in the use of circumstantial evidence is
that, to be substantial, the evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that
of the guilt of the accused. Id. The question of whether the circumstantial evidence excludes
every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence is for the jury to decide. Id.
Upon review, this court must determine whether the jury resorted to speculation and
conjecture in reaching its verdict. Id.
The jury was presented with evidence that York kept money in the cigar box, used
it as a cash register in his business, kept important personal papers in it, and kept it close to
his person. York’s daughter Sharon identified the cigar box and testified that in the box he
kept “bank statements and his employment papers and money.” The cigar box was nearly
empty. Exhibit 31 was a photograph of the open cigar box and revealed to the jury that it
contained twenty-eight cents and nothing else. No personal papers of any kind were in the
box. The slip of paper was found in Sales’s property taken when he was booked. Sharon
Thompson identified this as her daughter’s Medicaid number, and she testified that this was
one of the papers kept in the cigar box. A large number of coins consistent with what was
kept in the cigar box was found in Sales’s possession at the time of his arrest. Substantial
evidence supports the jury’s verdict that Sales committed aggravated robbery in that he robbed
York of the contents of the cigar box and inflicted serious injury. See Ark. Code Ann. § 512-103 (Repl. 1997). The verdict of aggravated robbery is affirmed.
-6-
CR07-1308
Substantial evidence also supports the jury’s verdict of premeditated and deliberated
capital murder under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-10-101(a)(4) (Supp. 2003). Less
than an hour prior to York’s death, his daughter Lisa was in the house and testified that only
York and Sales were present. Multiple pieces of evidence place Sales at the scene of the crime
at or near the time of York’s death. Sales was identified by three separate witnesses as being
in the house with York in the moments before the body was discovered. He was seen
bending over the location of the body. He was heard calling out the victim’s name. Blood
was found on his ring and on his shoes. A knife with York’s blood on it was found close by
York’s body. Sales’s footprints were in the blood at the scene.
There is further substantial evidence that Sales committed felony capital murder. See
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101(a)(1) (Supp. 2003). Under felony capital murder, the State also
had to show that in the course and in the furtherance of the robbery, Sales caused the death
of York under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life.
York suffered three mortal wounds including a stab to his throat, blunt force trauma to his
head and chest, as well as strangulation. York was a frail, disabled man who could not defend
himself. This constitutes substantial evidence that Sales killed York under circumstances
manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. It also constitutes proof that Sales
robbed York while armed with a deadly weapon and that he inflicted death in the course of
that robbery.
Mistrial
Sales moved for a mistrial, alleging that potential jurors were present and compromised
-7-
CR07-1308
when a law enforcement officer showed crime scene photographs to the family. Sales notes
that the circuit court “did not rule on the motion.” However, the circuit court later stated
that the motion was overruled. A mistrial is a drastic remedy, to be employed only when an
error is so prejudicial that justice cannot be served by continuing the trial, and when it cannot
be cured by an instruction to the jury. Johnson v. State, 366 Ark. 8, 233 S.W.3d 123 (2006).
The decision to grant a mistrial is within the sound discretion of the trial court and will not
be overturned absent a showing of abuse or manifest prejudice to the appellant. Id.
Sales offers no evidence that he suffered prejudice. There is no proof offered that any
person who saw the photographs was in the venire panel or served on the jury. There is no
proof offered that seeing the photographs or seeing the family view and react to the
photographs would necessarily preclude the jurors from serving. Further, Sales offered no
convincing authority for his argument. This court will not consider an argument in the
absence of convincing authority. Perroni v. State, 358 Ark. 17, 186 S.W.3d 206 (2004).
Victim-Impact Evidence
Sales argues that the circuit court erred in failing to preview and control the admission
of victim-impact evidence and in failing to sua sponte admonish the jury or declare a mistrial
when Sharon Thompson offered the following victim-impact testimony at trial:
My mama had Lupus. She could not pick him up. That was our job. (Very
loud.) That was my job to take care of my daddy, to bathe him, to clothe him
and to comb his hair. Why? (Yelling) Why? Why did he take my daddy from
me.
Mr. Potts:
I’m sorry, Your Honor, I object to - -
Mr. Deen:
Sharon, thank you. State calls Angela Hampton.
-8-
CR07-1308
There was no ruling on the objection. Thus, there is no decision of the circuit court on the
objection subject to appellate review. See Thomas v. State, 370 Ark. 70, 238 S.W.3d 24
(2007). Sales argues that the circuit court should have acted without an objection or request
by him. Thus, Sales asserts that the circuit court should have acted sua sponte on plain error.
Some jurisdictions, particularly the federal courts, conduct plain-error review; however, in
Arkansas, we do not. See Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53, 76 S.W.3d 825 (2002). However, in
Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (1980), we recognized four exceptions to the
plain-error rule that may be argued on appeal:
These exceptions occur when (1) a trial court, in a death-penalty case, fails to
bring to the jury’s attention a matter essential to its consideration of the death
penalty itself; (2) a trial court errs at a time when defense counsel has no
knowledge of the error and thus no opportunity to object; (3) a trial court
should intervene on its own motion to correct a serious error; and (4) the
admission or exclusion of evidence affects a defendant’s substantial rights.
Thomas, supra, 370 Ark. at 75, 238 S.W.3d at 97. Presumably, Sales is relying on the third
and fourth exceptions; however, he does not argue Wicks, supra, or the exceptions. He
provides no argument on the exceptions and provides no convincing authority for the
assertion that the court should have previewed and controlled the admission of the victim
impact evidence. We will not consider an argument in the absence of convincing authority.
Perroni, supra.
Aggravating Circumstances
Sales also challenges the admission of evidence of aggravating circumstances. He argues
that the circuit court erred in admitting evidence of pecuniary gain and avoiding or
preventing arrest. At trial, the circuit court raised the question of whether there was evidence
-9-
CR07-1308
to support the aggravator on preventing or avoiding arrest. The state argued that there was
evidence from which the jury could find that preventing or avoiding arrest was one of the
motivations for the murder. Sales did raise the issue of whether that aggravtor had to be
shown by proof beyond a reasonable doubt; however, after discussion on the subject, counsel
for Sales stated, “I have no problem with the aggravators as listed.” Thus, the issue was raised
by Sales but then waived. Waiver of the objection precludes appellate review of the issue.
See Dickerson v. State, 363 Ark. 437, 214 S.W.3d 811 (2005). Further, there was no ruling on
the objection. Failure to obtain a ruling on an issue at the trial court level precludes review
on appeal. Small v. State, 371 Ark. 244, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2007).
However, Sales argues that this court should still review the evidence on the
aggravating circumstances pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Appellate Procedure–Criminal 10.
Under Rule 10(b)(vi), we review whether the evidence supports the jury’s finding of a
statutory aggravating circumstance or circumstances. It does. Sales challenges the admission
of evidence of the aggravating circumstance of pecuniary gain and of avoiding or preventing
arrest. We review the sufficiency of the evidence of aggravating circumstances in the light
most favorable to the State to determine whether the trier of fact could have found the
existence of the aggravating circumstance beyond a reasonable doubt. Roberts v. State, 352
Ark. 489, 102 S.W.3d 482 (2003). As to pecuniary gain, as already discussed in detail, the
State offered substantial evidence to support the argument that Sales robbed York of the
contents of the cigar box. As to avoiding or preventing arrest, the jury could have concluded
from the evidence presented that York was killed at least in part to preclude him from
-10-
CR07-1308
identifying Sales. See Isom v. State, 356 Ark. 156, 148 S.W.3d 257 (2004).
We have reviewed this case on the issues enumerated under Ark. R. App. P.–Crim.
10 and find no error. Furthermore, the record has been reviewed in this case under Ark. Sup.
Ct. R. 4-3(h), and no reversible error has been found. Accordingly, we affirm.
-11-
CR07-1308
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.