Joseph M. Bienemy v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CR 08-514
Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER 18, 2008
JOSEPH M. BIENEMY,
APPELLANT;
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPEA L FR O M THE W H ITE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST
DIVISION; NO. CR-2007-211;
HON. ROBERT EDWARDS, JUDGE;
APPELLEE;
AFFIRMED.
DONALD L. CORBIN, Associate Justice
1.
APPEAL & ERROR — MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT — APPELLANT ’S SUFFICIENCY -OF-THE EVIDENCE ARGUMENT WAS NOT PRESERVED FOR APPELLATE REVIEW BECAUSE APPELLANT ’S
COUNSEL FAILED TO MAKE A SPECIFIC MOTION REGARDING LACK OF EVIDENCE .
— A
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is preserved by making a specific motion for
directed verdict at both the conclusion of the State’s case and at the conclusion of all the
evidence; because appellant’s counsel failed to make the specific motion regarding lack of
evidence to prove that appellant was an accomplice, his argument is not preserved for
appellate review.
2.
APPEAL & ERROR — REVIEW IN DEATH OR LIFE IMPRISONMENT CASES — ARK. SUP . CT . R.
4-3(h) DOES NOT MANDATE REVIEW OF APPELLANT ’S CLAIM BECAUSE DIRECTED -VERDICT
MOTION WAS NOT PROPERLY MADE .
— Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(h) does not mandate review
when a directed-verdict motion has not properly been made; accordingly, Rule 4-3(h) does
not mandate review of appellant’s claim that there was insufficient evidence that he was an
accomplice to the victim’s murder.
Appeal from White Circuit Court; Robert Edwards, Judge; affirmed.
Mark Alan Jessee, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Laura Shue, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
Appellant Joseph M. Bienemy appeals the order of the White County Circuit Court
convicting him of capital murder. On appeal, Bienemy argues that there was insufficient
evidence to establish that he was an accomplice to the murder of Carlos Deadmon. As
Bienemy was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, our jurisdiction is pursuant to
Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2(a)(2). We affirm.
The record reflects that on the morning of November 26, 2006, Deadmon was shot
twenty-two times as he was in his vehicle, attempting to leave the Pecan Street Apartments
in Searcy. In investigating Deadmon’s murder, Detective Jeff Nasser of the Searcy Police
Department learned of three possible suspects, Bienemy, Quincy Hays, and Antonio Brinson.
After several witnesses reported seeing a silver or gray Jeep in the apartment’s parking lot prior
to the murder, Detective Nasser located a Jeep fitting the witnesses’ description at the
Meadow Lake Apartments. Upon inspecting the vehicle, Detective Nasser noticed an
Enterprise Rental sticker on the back of the vehicle. Detective Nasser subsequently learned
that Bienemy had rented the Jeep from Enterprise.
Bienemy was charged with being an accomplice to murder in violation of Arkansas
Code Annotated section 5-10-104(a)(1) (Repl. 2006).1 He was tried before a jury on January
15–16, 2008.
At trial, Dr. Daniel Konzelmann of the Arkansas State Crime Lab testified
1
Bienemy was originally charged with first-degree murder, but the State amended the felony information on
September 26, 2007, to charge him with capital murder.
-2-
CR 08-514
regarding his findings in the autopsy of Deadmon. According to Dr. Konzelmann, twentytwo gunshot wounds entered Deadmon’s body, and he suffered an additional graze wound.
Dr. Konzelmann stated that the trajectory of the wounds and the embedded glass in the
victim’s body indicated that Deadmon was seated in the driver’s seat and shot through the
vehicle’s back glass.
Detective Steve Taylor of the Searcy Police Department testified about his
involvement with the investigation into Deadmon’s death. In addition to explaining the
evidence that was recovered from the scene, Detective Taylor testified that witnesses at the
scene told officers that there had been a gray Jeep parked in the area of the shooting and that
the Jeep sped away from the area. Finally, Detective Taylor stated that he interviewed Jimmy
Deadmon, the victim’s brother, after the shooting and that Jimmy told him that there had
been some sort of dispute between his brother and Bienemy.
Detective Nasser testified about the information he received that a gray Jeep
Commander had been parked behind the victim’s car. He also discovered a partially smoked
cigar with a plastic tip on it at the scene, as well as another piece of cigar. Detective Nasser
collected both items and sent them to the state crime lab to be tested for DNA analysis.
Detective Nasser then located a gray Jeep matching the description of the one witnessed at
the crime scene. Detective Nasser noticed that the Jeep had a sticker on the rear glass
indicating that it had been rented from Enterprise Rental. After talking to employees of the
Enterprise office in Searcy, Detective Nasser learned that Bienemy had rented a gray Jeep
Commander on the morning of November 25, 2006, and in the rental contract had agreed
-3-
CR 08-514
to return the vehicle on November 27, 2006. Detective Nasser also testified that he viewed
surveillance footage from a local gas station that depicted Bienemy exit the Jeep Commander
at approximately 6:50 a.m. on the morning of November 26, 2006, go inside the station and
pay for gas. According to Detective Nasser, it appeared as if a second person was in the
vehicle, but he admitted that he could not positively state that there was a second person in
the Jeep.
Laurel Bright, formerly a detective with the Searcy Police Department, testified
regarding the statement that Bienemy voluntarily gave police during their investigation.
Bright stated that after Bienemy was advised of his rights, he gave a statement indicating that
he rented the Jeep Commander to drive to New Orleans with his girlfriend, Shaletha
Blackwell, so that he could leave his car in Searcy for his dad to drive. He stated that
Blackwell misplaced the keys, and they ended up driving his car instead, leaving Searcy at
approximately 2:00 p.m. and arriving in New Orleans at 10:00 p.m. on November 25, 2006.
Bienemy also told Bright that he was in New Orleans on November 26, that he was with
Blackwell the entire time, and that he did not shoot Deadmon or pay anyone else to shoot
him, nor was he involved in any type of dispute with Deadmon.
Beth Hill, a forensic DNA examiner with the state crime lab, testified that DNA found
on the plastic mouth piece recovered at the scene of the crime matched a DNA sample
provided by Bienemy “within all scientific certainty.”
Darian Williams, who also lived at the Pecan Street Apartments, testified that he knew
Bienemy because he used to buy crack cocaine from him. According to Williams, Deadmon
-4-
CR 08-514
had robbed Bienemy and his dad, Joe Knight, of $20,000. Bienemy instructed Williams to
call him and let him know if he saw Deadmon. Williams also testified that on the evening
of November 25, Bienemy called him and stated that Bienemy was in the parking lot of the
Pecan Street Apartments, and if Williams needed anything to contact Knight. Williams stated
that he saw the gray Jeep when he left later that evening, and that it was in the same spot the
next morning when he left again. Williams also stated that he was at Knight’s apartment on
the morning of Deadmon’s murder when Bienemy and another black male entered the
apartment, with Bienemy carrying something wrapped in a towel.
Finally, Simone Robinson, Deadmon’s girlfriend at the time of his death, testified that
the morning of his murder she noticed a gray Jeep parked in a spot directly behind Deadmon’s
vehicle. Robinson stated that Deadmon had been to his car once that morning, when he
decided to leave to get some cigarettes. At the time of the shooting, Robinson was on the
balcony. There, she noticed the Jeep back up, and she saw a man wearing a mask exit the
vehicle and begin shooting.
At the close of the State’s case, Bienemy moved for a directed verdict, arguing there
was insufficient evidence connecting him with the murder. The motion was denied, and
Bienemy rested without presenting any evidence. Bienemy renewed his motion for directed
verdict, and the case was subsequently submitted to the jury. The jury returned a verdict and
sentence as previously set forth. This appeal followed.
As his sole point on appeal, Bienemy argues that there was insufficient evidence to
establish that he was an accomplice to the murder of Deadmon. Specifically, Bienemy argues
-5-
CR 08-514
that the State failed to prove one of the three relevant factors necessary to establish that he was
an accomplice, and it was therefore error for the trial court to submit the case to the jury.
The State counters that there was sufficient evidence establishing Bienemy’s guilt.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court views the
evidence in a light most favorable to the State and considers only the evidence that supports
the verdict. Boldin v. State, 373 Ark. 295, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Apr. 24, 2008). Substantial
evidence is that evidence which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable
certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resorting to speculation or
conjecture. Id.
When
a
theory
of
accomplice
liability
is
implicated,
we
affirm
a
sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge if substantial evidence exists that the defendant acted
as an accomplice in the commission of the alleged offense. See Hickman v. State, 372 Ark. 438,
___ S.W.3d ___ (2008); Wilson v. State, 365 Ark. 664, 232 S.W.3d 455 (2006). We have said
that there is no distinction between principals on the one hand and accomplices on the other,
insofar as criminal liability is concerned. Navarro v. State, 371 Ark. 179, ___ S.W.3d ___
(2007). When two people assist one another in the commission of a crime, each is an
accomplice and criminally liable for the conduct of both.
Id.
One cannot disclaim
accomplice liability simply because he did not personally take part in every act that went to
make up the crime as a whole. Id.
-6-
CR 08-514
Even though it is not raised by the State, we must decide as a threshold issue whether
Bienemy’s directed-verdict motion is preserved for our review. At the close of the State’s
case, counsel for Bienemy moved for a directed verdict, stating:
The Defendant’s going to move for a judgment of acquittal . . . .
. . . [t]he State’s failed to present a sufficiency of evidence on which the jury
could even take this case and determine a finding of guilt. . . . [T]here is very
little testimony . . . connecting this Defendant with the death of the victim,
Carlos Deadmon.
Clearly, the motion for a directed verdict was not specific with regard to how the State failed
to prove its case; however, on appeal, Bienemy now argues that the State failed to prove any
of the necessary elements of accomplice liability.
[1] A challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence is preserved by making a specific
motion for directed verdict at both the conclusion of the State’s case and at the conclusion of
all of the evidence. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1; Durham v. State, 320 Ark. 689, 899 S.W.2d 470
(1995). Rule 33.1 reads in pertinent part:
(a) In a jury trial, if a motion for directed verdict is to be made, it shall
be made at the close of the evidence offered by the prosecution and at the close
of all of the evidence. A motion for directed verdict shall state the specific
grounds therefor.
....
(c) The failure of a defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence
at the times and in the manner required in subsections (a) and (b) above will
constitute a waiver of any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence
to support the verdict or judgment. A motion for directed verdict or for
dismissal based on insufficiency of the evidence must specify the respect in
which the evidence is deficient. A motion merely stating that the evidence is
insufficient does not preserve for appeal issues relating to a specific deficiency
such as insufficient proof on the elements of the offense. A renewal at the close
of all of the evidence of a previous motion for directed verdict or for dismissal
-7-
CR 08-514
preserves the issue of insufficient evidence for appeal. If for any reason a
motion or a renewed motion at the close of all of the evidence for directed
verdict or for dismissal is not ruled upon, it is deemed denied for purposes of
obtaining appellate review on the question of the sufficiency of the evidence.
The rationale behind this rule is that “when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof
is pinpointed, the circuit court can either grant the motion, or, if justice requires, allow the
State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof.” Pinell v. State, 364 Ark. 353, 357, 219
S.W.3d 168, 171 (2005). Without a trial court’s ruling on a specific motion, there is nothing
for this court to review. Ashley v. State, 358 Ark. 414, 191 S.W.3d 520 (2004). Because
counsel for Bienemy failed to make the specific motion regarding lack of evidence to prove
that Bienemy was an accomplice, his argument is not preserved for our review.
[2] Before leaving this point, we are mindful that the instant case is a capital murder
case with a sentence of life imprisonment that requires us under Arkansas Supreme Court
Rule 4-3(h) to review all rulings decided adversely to Bienemy. However, this fact does not
change the conclusion that we are precluded from considering the merits of Bienemy’s
argument concerning insufficient evidence of accomplice liability. As we stated in Maxwell
v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (May 29, 2008):
[T]his court has held in the past that failure to make the motions for directed
verdict with specificity regarding the sufficiency issue on appeal equates to the
motion never having been made. See Tillman v. State, 364 Ark. 143, 147, 217
S.W.3d 773, 775 (2005); Webb v. State, 327 Ark. 51, 60, 938 S.W.2d 806,
811-12 (1997). We hold that this is so even in situations where the motion is
specific at the close of all the evidence but not at the close of the State’s case.
The motion for directed verdict on the issue at hand is simply not preserved.
Rule 4-3(h), as a result, does not mandate review of the serious-physical-injury
point when the directed-verdict motion has not properly been made. See
Tillman, 364 Ark. at 147, 217 S.W.3d at 775.
-8-
CR 08-514
Accordingly, Rule 4-3(h) does not mandate review of Bienemy’s claim that there was
insufficient evidence that he was an accomplice to Deadmon’s murder.
Pursuant to Rule 4-3(h), the record has been examined for all other objections,
motions, and requests made by either party that were decided adversely to Bienemy, and no
prejudicial error has been found. Boldin, 373 Ark. 295, ___ S.W.3d ___.
Affirmed.
G LAZE, J., not participating.
-9-
CR 08-514
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.