{
  "id": 6136771,
  "name": "Wardell ALFAY v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Alfay v. State",
  "decision_date": "1985-05-08",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 84-224",
  "first_page": "32",
  "last_page": "35",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "15 Ark. App. 32"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "688 S.W.2d 951"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "11 Ark. App. 129",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6651724
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/11/0129-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "621 S.W.2d 224",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        6141723,
        8720943
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/2/0278-01",
        "/ark/273/0495-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "2 Ark. App. 278",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6141723
      ],
      "year": 1981,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/2/0278-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "269 Ark. 273",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1712562
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1980,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/269/0273-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 413,
    "char_count": 5415,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.91,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17485285821683041
    },
    "sha256": "dd3eb44752ee7aa04423299abad0fbb6d6f74acb791a64d74003c35c1c2af8fa",
    "simhash": "1:da7eaeaef402cc56",
    "word_count": 904
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:08:52.139004+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Cooper and Glaze, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Wardell ALFAY v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Lawson Cloninger, Judge.\nAppellant was convicted of aggravated robbery under Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2102 (Supp. 1983) and sentenced, as an habitual offender, to thirty years imprisonment under the provisions of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1001 (Supp. 1983). His sole argument on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction on the charge. Our review of the record persuades us that the evidence was sufficient, and we affirm the judgment of the trial court.\nArk. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-2102 provides, in pertinent part, that:\n(1) A person commits aggravated robbery as defined in Section 2103 of Act 280 of 1975 (Arkansas Statutes Annotated 41-2103) and he:\n(a) is armed with a deadly weapon, or represents by word or conduct that he is so armed . . .\nAppellant contends that the evidence upon which he was convicted was insufficient because the State did not prove the statutory element of his having represented himself \u201cby word or conduct\u201d as being armed with a deadly weapon. He cites Fairchild v. State, 269 Ark. 273, 600 S.W.2d 16 (1980), for the principle that, in the absence of the victim\u2019s belief that a suspect is armed, there is insufficient representation on the suspect\u2019s part to satisfy the requirements of aggravated robbery, even when the suspect approaches the victim with a hand concealed beneath his shirt. In Fairchild, the appellant rushed up to the State\u2019s witness and demanded her money. His right hand was hidden under his shirt. When the witness denied having any money on her person, Fairchild \u201cgrabbed her dress lightly and insisted that she was lying.\u201d The witness then turned to go inside a private club, \u201cdisplaying only car keys in her hands.\u201d At that point Fairchild withdrew. After his arrest, he volunteered information that he had attempted to induce the witness to believe that he was holding a gun. The Supreme Court noted that the witness appeared not to \u201cattach any special significance\u201d to Fairchild\u2019s conduct nor to feel threatened by it. Indeed, she did not mention the concealed hand until she was prompted by the prosecutor\u2019s leading question. In consequence, the court reduced the judgment from aggravated robbery to the lesser included offense of robbery.\nThe testimony in the present case enables us to distinguish it from the circumstances of Fairchild. Vivian Stewart, an employee of a convenience store, testified that appellant came into the store complaining about having to pay to pump air into his tires. No one else was in the store at the time. Appellant spoke with Stewart for a few minutes and then left. The witness stated that she listened for the sound of appellant\u2019s car being driven away because appellant\u2019s attitude and behavior had made her nervous.\nAppellant suddenly returned and stood over Stewart, who was sitting down. His right hand was concealed inside a facial tissue box. He said to her, \u201cDo you want me to cut you?\u201d Startled and confused, the witness replied, \u201cWhat?\u201d Appellant then said, \u201cDo you want me to castrate you?\u201d Stewart was attempting to make sense of appellant\u2019s remark when he threatened to \u201ccut\u201d her again and ordered her to open the cash register. She rose from her seat, backed up, and opened the register. Appellant took all the money out and ran outside, leaving a trail of bills behind him. Stewart followed him in order to close and lock the door and noticed that he had backed his car up to the door. She noted the license plate, locked the door, and phoned the police, who later arrested appellant.\nIn her testimony, the State\u2019s witness emphasized that appellant\u2019s attitude and behavior had made her nervous during their initial contact. She stated that she saw the box covering appellant\u2019s right hand and believed that he was concealing a knife or another weapon. She specifically said that she gave appellant the money because he threatened to \u201ccut\u201d her. Finally, she asserted that she had been frightened by the entire incident.\nIn determining the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and affirm if there is any substantial evidence to support the jury\u2019s verdict. Cook v. State, 2 Ark. App. 278, 621 S.W.2d 224 (1981). Substantial evidence is that evidence that is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable and material certainty and precision, compel a conclusion one way or the other. It must force or induce the mind to pass beyond a suspicion or conjecture. Jones v. State, 11 Ark. App. 129, 668 S.W.2d 30 (1984).\nApplying our standard of review to the case before us, we find that the evidence presented through Stewart\u2019s testimony was of sufficient force and character to compel the conclusion that the witness was responding to appellant\u2019s commands in the belief that he carried a weapon within the box and that she would be harmed if she failed to follow his instructions. This subjective apprehension on the witness\u2019s part, combined with appellant\u2019s objective conduct, more than meets the Fairchild, supra, requirement and satisfies our standard of review.\nAffirmed.\nCooper and Glaze, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Lawson Cloninger, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Thomas J. O\u2019Hern, Deputy Public Defender.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Sandra Tucker Partridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Wardell ALFAY v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 84-224\n688 S.W.2d 951\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered May 8, 1985\nWilliam R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Thomas J. O\u2019Hern, Deputy Public Defender.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Sandra Tucker Partridge, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0032-01",
  "first_page_order": 54,
  "last_page_order": 57
}