{ "id": 1744811, "name": "Joseph Michael BREAULT v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Breault v. State", "decision_date": "1983-10-17", "docket_number": "CR 83-45", "first_page": "372", "last_page": "376", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "280 Ark. 372" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "659 S.W.2d 176" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "272 Ark. 5", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1174846 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/272/0005-01" ] }, { "cite": "280 Ark. 27", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1744825 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "30-31" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/280/0027-01" ] }, { "cite": "280 Ark. 385", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1744818 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/280/0385-01" ] }, { "cite": "391 U.S. 510", "category": "reporters:federal", "reporter": "U.S.", "case_ids": [ 1767501 ], "year": 1968, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/us/391/0510-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 Ark. 71", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1753679 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "83-84" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/275/0071-01" ] }, { "cite": "587 S.W.2d 571", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 8722128, 8721976 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "580" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/266/0709-01", "/ark/266/0697-01" ] }, { "cite": "266 Ark. 709", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8722128 ], "year": 1979, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "724-25" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/266/0709-01" ] }, { "cite": "273 Ark. 59", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717426 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/273/0059-01" ] }, { "cite": "269 Ark. 119", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1712552 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1980, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/269/0119-01" ] }, { "cite": "275 Ark. 207", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1753701 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1982, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "209" }, { "page": "325" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/275/0207-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 444, "char_count": 6112, "ocr_confidence": 0.844, "pagerank": { "raw": 9.819162132923787e-08, "percentile": 0.533249235766255 }, "sha256": "aa505d25587ec3af918a2b2b91706be437a460e3096484908251647dd0d05914", "simhash": "1:3becce3e3eac1174", "word_count": 1032 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:12:47.726191+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Joseph Michael BREAULT v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice.\nThe appellant, Joseph Michael Breault, was convicted in the Saline County Circuit Court of the capital felony murder of Sandra McCann. The jury fixed his punishment at life imprisonment without parole. On appeal, we affirm.\nOn February 2, 1980, Robert Richard Heffernan, Doreen Smock, appellant, and appellant\u2019s wife, Annette Breault Pinsonnault arrived at the Jellystone Park near Benton. They were traveling in a truck with a camper attached and registered under the fictitious name of Barry Moore. Both appellant and Heffernan wore pistols. The camper was removed from the truck. Appellant and Heffernan, both wearing guns, left the park together in the truck on various occasions during their stay there.\nOn February 3,1980, at about 5:45 p.m., the victim went to the laundromat at Indian Springs. Around 9:00 p.m., when she had failed to return home, her mother\u2019s fiance went to look for her at the laundromat. The victim was not there. Some of the clothes she had taken to wash were in the dryers, some on the floor, and some hanging up. The victim\u2019s car keys and book were left on a table; her coat was left in a chair.\nThe next day around dinner time, her body was found on a dirt road off Flighway 5. She was dressed in blue jeans and a sequin-appliqued tee shirt. Motile sperm were found in her vagina. She had been shot four times. A bullet was retrieved from her body and another one from her clothing.\nOn February 5,1980, appellant, Heffernan, and the two women left Jellystone Park, cutting short their intended stay by one day, and traveled to Lake Texoma, Oklahoma. Appellant there stated to Ms. Pinsonnault in front of the others that he had gotten rid of the pistols. The four then traveled to Colorado where they were apprehended by the Colorado State Police.\nFirst, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury\u2019s verdict. Testimony established that appellant departed from the campground wearing a gun and in company with Heffernan; there was testimony of appellant\u2019s statement made at Lake Texoma that he had gotten rid of the guns; testimony established that two bullets taken from the victim\u2019s body had been fired from the gun recovered from Lake Texoma; and it was established that the hair and sequins found on the victim\u2019s body matched the hair and sequins found on appellant\u2019s clothing retrieved from the camper. This evidence was sufficient to support the jury\u2019s verdict. \u201cThe fact that evidence is circumstantial does not render it insubstantial \u2014 the law makes no distinction between direct evidence of a fact and evidence of circumstances from which a fact may be inferred.\u201d Cooper v. State, 275 Ark. 207, 209, 628 S.W.2d 324, 325 (1982). Where the verdict is supported by any substantial evidence the verdict must be affirmed. Jones v. State, 269 Ark. 119, 598 S.W.2d 748 (1980). See also Cassell v. State, 273 Ark. 59, 616 S.W.2d 485 (1981).\nSecond, appellant argues that the trial court erred in instructing the jury not to complete the verdict forms on the underlying felonies. The jury, by implication, had to find appellant guilty of either kidnapping or rape in order to find him guilty of capital felony murder. The circumstantial evidence is equally persuasive as to both kidnapping and rape. We have previously held that the jury need not specify which one of two underlying felonies the defendant is guilty of in a capital felony murder charge. Sumlin v. State, 266 Ark. 709, 724-25, 587 S.W.2d 571, 580 (1979).\nThird, appellant argues that the integrity of the evidence was violated, making testimony of the scientific comparison of the animal hair and sequins unreliable. Both truck and camper were sealed when seized. Only police investigators entered the vehicles. There is, therefore, no merit to this argument.\nFourth, appellant argues that error occurred in the seating of the jury. Appellant contends that the trial court\u2019s denial for cause of venireman Hess Carlton forced him to use his last peremptory challenge which resulted in another j uror being seated whom he would have challenged. During questioning, Carlton stated that a person found guilty of kidnapping and rape should be executed. In further questioning by the trial court, Carlton stated he would consider the law and the evidence and deliberate with the other j urors before voting for a death sentence. We find that juror Carlton was sufficiently rehabilitated by the trial court so that the court was correct in not striking him for cause. Hill v. State, 275 Ark. 71, 83-84, 628 S.W.2d 285 (1982).\nAppellant also argues that the jury, being death qualified pursuant to Witherspoon v. Illinois, 391 U.S. 510 (1968), was more prone to convict and that he was thus denied a fair trial. We have consistently rejected this argument. For a review of our cases so holding, see Rector v. State, 280 Ark. 385, 659 S.W.2d 168 (1983).\nFifth, appellant argues that the trial court erred in failing to submit to the jury, as a simple defense, the affirmative defense of nonparticipation provided for in Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1501 (2) (Repl. 1977). Appellant contends that an affirmative defense places the burden of proof upon the defendant to prove a fact by the preponderance of the evidence which is actually an element of the crime and therefore a fact which the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Such is not the law. We have previously held that the burden on the defendant to prove an affirmative defense does not arise until the state has met its burden of proof as to the elements of the offense. Moss v. State, 280 Ark. 27, 30-31, 655 S.W.2d 375 (1983).\nWe have examined all other objections made during the trial pursuant to Rule 11 (f), Rules of the Supreme Court, Ark. Stat. Ann., Vol. 3A (Repl. 1977) and find no error. See Earl v. State, 272 Ark. 5, 612 S.W.2d 98 (1981).\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Richard B. Adkisson, Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Jeff Rosenzweig, for appellant.", "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Velda P. West, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Joseph Michael BREAULT v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 83-45\n659 S.W.2d 176\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 17, 1983\nJeff Rosenzweig, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Velda P. West, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0372-01", "first_page_order": 398, "last_page_order": 402 }