{
  "id": 6138665,
  "name": "George GUTHERIE v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Gutherie v. State",
  "decision_date": "1996-02-28",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 95-235",
  "first_page": "145",
  "last_page": "146",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "52 Ark. App. 145"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "915 S.W.2d 739"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "46 Ark. App. 205",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6139535
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/46/0205-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-89-111",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "e"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 Ark. 503",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1906094
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/309/0503-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 Ark. 119",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1898893
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/310/0119-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "315 Ark. 602",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1910489
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/315/0602-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 209,
    "char_count": 2573,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.881,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08,
      "percentile": 0.17488857458485033
    },
    "sha256": "72764d6298fa2650572d81c49f06b0dbc5f60854927ab678c95ebe6e2b71f2ef",
    "simhash": "1:bdc8c430392d905a",
    "word_count": 421
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:09:48.648567+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Robbins and Griffen, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "George GUTHERIE v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John E. Jennings, Chief Judge.\nGeorge Gutherie was convicted by a Craighead County jury of burglary and misdemeanor theft. He appeals from the theft conviction only, contending that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction. We disagree and affirm.\nThe test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence. Clark v. State, 315 Ark. 602, 870 S.W.2d 372 (1994). Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Lukach v. State, 310 Ark. 119, 835 S.W.2d 852 (1992). In determining the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the proof in the light most favorable to the appellee, considering only that evidence which tends to support the verdict. Brown v. State, 309 Ark. 503, 832 S.W.2d 477 (1992).\nOn February 18, 1994, Woodrow Wilson saw appellant\u2019s brother, Gerald, running out from behind Garland Platz\u2019s house. Wilson testified that he went into town to warn Platz. He testified that he told Platz that he thought appellant and his brother had \u201cripped him off.\u201d Garland Platz testified that after talking to Wilson he drove home and when he was about 100 yards from his house he saw appellant and his brother pulling out of his driveway. He testified that his VCR had been stolen. Platz gave Officer Terry Wicker a description of appellant\u2019s car. Wicker testified that when he stopped appellant\u2019s car, he saw a VCR in the car. Finally, appellant\u2019s brother testified that he had broken into Platz\u2019s house because appellant told him to get something so they could pawn it.\nAppellant contends that the evidence was insufficient because the only testimony connecting him with the theft was that of his brother, an accomplice whose testimony had to be corroborated. Appellant was convicted of misdemeanor theft. In misdemeanor cases, the testimony of an accomplice alone is sufficient to support a conviction. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-89-111 (e)(2) (1987). Appellant further argues that his brother\u2019s testimony was not credible. The issue of a witness\u2019s credibility was a matter for the jury to determine. Carter v. State, 46 Ark. App. 205, 878 S.W.2d 772 (1994). We hold that the evidence was sufficient to support the conviction.\nAffirmed.\nRobbins and Griffen, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John E. Jennings, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Christopher M. Jester, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Sandy Moll, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "George GUTHERIE v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 95-235\n915 S.W.2d 739\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered February 28, 1996\nChristopher M. Jester, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Sandy Moll, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0145-01",
  "first_page_order": 167,
  "last_page_order": 168
}