 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Newton v. State6/28/2000
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
AFFIRMED
A jury sitting in the Jefferson County Circuit Court convicted the appellant, Jerry Newton, of manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident. Appellant was fined $20,000 and sentenced to the Arkansas Department of Correction for ten years for manslaughter and six years for leaving the scene of an accident. Subsequently, the trial judge suspended appellant's sentence for leaving the scene of an accident but left the manslaughter sentence in place. On appeal, appellant presents three arguments: (1) that the trial court erred in denying appellant's motions for directed verdict because the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of manslaughter or leaving the scene of an accident; (2) that the trial court erred in allowing an instruction for the lesser-included offense of manslaughter; and (3) that the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for a new trial based on the State's intentional withholding of exculpatory evidence in violation of Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963). We affirm.
The State charged appellant with second-degree murder and leaving the scene of a personal-injury accident. On January 16, 1996, the fatal hit-and-run incident occurred in Pine Bluff. The decedent, Michael Ray, was jogging near a turn in the road on Ridgeway Road when a vehicle heading south struck Ray and caused his death. Although there were no witnesses to the accident, several individuals heard the accident and went outside to investigate. Each of these individuals testified at trial and described the vehicle involved as a long-wheel base white or light-gray GMC or Chevrolet truck. After hearing all of the evidence, a jury convicted appellant of the lesser-included offense of manslaughter and leaving the scene of an accident.
For appellant's first point on appeal, he claims that the trial court erred in denying his motions for a directed verdict because the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction of manslaughter or leaving the scene of an accident. A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Mings v. State, 318 Ark. 201, 884 S.W.2d 596 (1994). The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, whether direct or circumstantial. Brown v. State, 315 Ark. 466, 869 S.W.2d 9 (1994). Evidence is substantial if it is of sufficient force and character to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Thomas v. State, 312 Ark. 158, 847 S.W.2d 695 (1993). We will affirm the conviction if there is substantial evidence to support it, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State as appellee. Bangs v. State, 338 Ark. 515, 998 S.W.2d 738 (1999).
Appellant specifically argues that his conviction for manslaughter should be reversed in that there was insufficient evidence presented that the driver of the suspect vehicle acted "recklessly." In response, the State argues that appellant failed to preserve this argument for our review. Although appellant moved for a directed verdict on the charge of second-degree murder, he never did so with respect to the lesser- included offense of manslaughter. Further, he did not assert in his directed-verdict motion that the State had not proven that the driver acted recklessly. Rather, he claimed only that the State had not proven purposeful conduct.
A defendant is required to address lesser-included offenses in his motion for a directed verdict to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence necessary to support a conviction for a lesser-included offense. Webb v. State, 328 Ark. 12, 941 S.W.2d 417 (1997). This may
Page 1 2 3 4 Arkansas Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|