{
  "id": 6141258,
  "name": "Robert Lee FULLER v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Fuller v. State",
  "decision_date": "2007-06-20",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 06-1291",
  "first_page": "264",
  "last_page": "266",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "99 Ark. App. 264"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "259 S.W.3d 486"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "86 Ark. App. 59",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        5404468,
        6136575
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/357/0059-01",
        "/ark-app/86/0059-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-26-302",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2006,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(2)(H)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(l)(A)"
        },
        {
          "page": "(1)(A)",
          "parenthetical": "ii"
        },
        {
          "page": "(1)(A)",
          "parenthetical": "emphasis added"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 359,
    "char_count": 5310,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.766,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 4.7817273071113374e-08,
      "percentile": 0.30114767308827656
    },
    "sha256": "b1a4fb70597de2e76f45f57a74c31af64e1e55cf21fb012c12def61d1944c6b5",
    "simhash": "1:5e53c4a0381f43c0",
    "word_count": 858
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T20:09:21.655097+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Robbins and Heffley, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Robert Lee FULLER v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge.\nAppellant was convicted of third-degree domestic battery for hitting and injuring Vonetta Henderson, fined $300, and placed on probation for one year. He argues on appeal that there is no substantial evidence to support his conviction. We affirm.\nArkansas Code Annotated section 5-26-305 (Repl. 2006) provides, in pertinent part, that a person commits domestic battering in the third degree if he purposely or recklessly causes physical injury to a household member. \u201cFamily or household member[s]\u201d includes persons who have been in the past or are presently in a dating relationship together. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-26-302(2)(H) (Repl. 2006). \u201cDating relationship\u201d is defined, in part, as a romantic or intimate social relationship between two individuals, determined by examining the length of the relationship, the type of the relationship, and the frequency of the interaction between the two individuals involved in the relationship. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-26-302(l)(A) (Repl. 2006). Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to prove that he and the victim were in a \u201cdating relationship\u201d as defined by the statute.\nWhen the sufficiency of the evidence to support a criminal conviction is challenged on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, considering only the proof that supports the finding of guilt. Payne v. State, 86 Ark. App. 59, 159 S.W.3d 804 (2004). We will affirm if there is substantial evidence to support the decision. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence that is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or another. Id.\nHere, there was evidence that appellant and the victim had been involved in a romantic relationship between September 2004 and February 2005. They spent time outside of work together; they had sexual relations together \u201cmultiple times\u201d; they spent the night together; they went to eat and to the movies together; and they spent time together in the presence of the victim\u2019s children. The victim broke off the relationship because \u201cit wasn\u2019t enough for [her] anyway to have him with another woman all the time and [she] wanted to have another relationship with someone else who could be [her] own.\u201d They continued to work together for about eight months at a nursing home, where they interacted as coworkers \u201cexcept for the fact that while [they] were at work, [appellant] would approach [the victim] and ask . . . [her] to give him one last hug and tell [her] he missed [her] and could we do it again and stuff like that.\u201d Appellant knew that the victim was pregnant by her husband and said \u201cthat should have been his child.\u201d On October 2, 2005, they became involved in an argument over their work duties that escalated when appellant told the victim that she was \u201cnot going to talk to [him] crazy like she talk[ed] to [her] husband . . . and that\u2019s probably why he left you.\u201d By appellant\u2019s account, that remark \u201chit a nerve and she went bakooz \u2014 well, she went, you know, wow,\u201d and \u201ccame running over.\u201d Appellant then struck and bruised the victim.\nAppellant contends that the evidence was insufficient to show a dating relationship, arguing that, because the victim was married to another man during their relationship, theirs could not have been a \u201cdating relationship\u201d under Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-26-302(1)(A) (ii). Appellant cites neither argument nor convincing authority to show why an adulterous relationship does not come under the purview of a statute intended to curb domestic violence. The legislature has expressly included a broad definition of \u201cfamily or household member\u201d to include \u201cdating relationships\u201d based on three factors, including \u201ctype.\u201d Here the relationship was a romantic one that lasted several months and included trips to movies, dinner, overnight visits, and multiple instances of sexual relations. Appellant cites neither law nor reason to support his assertion that persons involved in a relationship of this type do not come under the protection of the statute.\nAppellant next argues that there was insufficient evidence of the frequency of the interactions between the victim and appellant during their relationship because the victim failed to state precisely how often she and appellant had sexual relations. We do not agree. A dating relationship need not be sexual; under the statutory language it may be a \u201cromantic or intimate social relationship.\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-26-302(1)(A) (emphasis added). The testimony was sufficient to show that appellant and the victim had numerous romantic and intimate interactions of various types for a sufficient length of time to support a finding that there was a \u201cdating relationship\u201d under the statute \u2014 particularly in light of the evidence that bickering over romantic attachments played a considerable part in the altercation leading to the battery of which appellant was convicted.\nAffirmed.\nRobbins and Heffley, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, Sharon Kiel, Deputy Public Defender, by: Clint Miller, for appellant.",
      "Dustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Lauren Elizabeth Heil, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Robert Lee FULLER v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 06-1291\n259 S.W.3d 486\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 20, 2007\nWilliam R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, Sharon Kiel, Deputy Public Defender, by: Clint Miller, for appellant.\nDustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Lauren Elizabeth Heil, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0264-01",
  "first_page_order": 300,
  "last_page_order": 302
}