{
  "id": 1904392,
  "name": "David Morris SMITH v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Smith v. State",
  "decision_date": "1992-02-24",
  "docket_number": "CR 91-244",
  "first_page": "390",
  "last_page": "393",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "308 Ark. 390"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "824 S.W.2d 838"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "802 S.W.2d 448",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1881081
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/304/0339-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "304 Ark. 32",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1881015
      ],
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/304/0032-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-10-102",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1991,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)(2)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-10-101",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "a"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "652 S.W.2d 35",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1746973
      ],
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/279/0430-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "219 Ark. 430",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "295 Ark. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893810
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/295/0499-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "284 Ark. 247",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1878611
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1984,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/284/0247-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "280 Ark. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1744875
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/280/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "297 Ark. 115",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1891340
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/297/0115-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 413,
    "char_count": 6114,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.906,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.643089219673733e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8233061078078298
    },
    "sha256": "211b99cc2b3ccff35062e960898678652168c965fecd7f656c37d1c47ca80604",
    "simhash": "1:ab2dc3b26968d358",
    "word_count": 1058
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:22:40.186541+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "David Morris SMITH v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nThe appellant, David Morris Smith, was convicted of first degree murder, second degree battery, and aggravated assault in connection with the death of Michael McCoy and the assault and battery of Smith\u2019s ex-wife, Patsy Turner. He was sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder, six years imprisonment for the battery, and two years imprisonment for the assault. Smith\u2019s only point of appeal is that the evidence was insufficient for conviction. We find the evidence was sufficient and affirm the conviction.\nPatsy Turner was the chief witness against Smith. She testified that on May 31,1990, she and McCoy were parked at the Glenview Recreation Center in North Little Rock when Smith walked up to the car, opened the door, said \u201cum, you\u2019re the M-FI have been looking for\u201d and shot the victim. She then got out of the car, pulled a gun from her purse and exchanged several shots with Smith. At that point her gun jammed, and she began to run. Smith caught and struck her on the head with his pistol.\nAnother witness for the prosecution, Mark Magness, testified he lived about 150 yards from the Community Center and witnessed two people arguing at a car in the lot, heard a shot, saw one of the people push the other out of the way aiid then heard more gunshots. He saw the man later capture and strike the woman and heard him say \u201cb. . .h, I ought to kill you, too.\u201d Patsy Turner ran to Magness\u2019 house, and Magness called the police.\nSmith testified that he was walking past the Community Center when a car door opened and someone shot at him twice. He said the second shot grazed his arm at which point he turned around and returned fire. Patsy Turner then got out of the car and the gunfire continued until she ran out of bullets. He then grabbed her and hit her with the gun on the side of her head.\nBallistics determined that the fatal bullet was fired from a .38 caliber gun and that Patsy Turner\u2019s pistol was a .22 caliber which made it impossible for the fatal bullet to come from her gun.\n1. Sufficiency\nThe general rule with respect to sufficiency of the evidence is that the evidence to support a conviction, whether direct or circumstantial, must be 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 the mind to go beyond speculation or conjecture and is not satisfied by evidence which gives equal support to inconsistent inferences. This court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, and we look only to the evidence which supports the verdict. Bennett v. State, 297 Ark. 115, 759 S.W.2d 799 (1988). We affirm the verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence.\nIn determining the sufficiency of the evidence, the evidence and all its reasonable inferences are viewed most favorably to the appellee. Blaney v. State, 280 Ark. 253, 657 S.W.2d 531 (1983). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence we disregard any other trial errors Harris v. State, 284 Ark. 247, 681 S.W.2d 334 (1984). It is for the jury to resolve inconsistencies in the testimony. Lewis v. State, 295 Ark. 499, 749 S.W.2d 672 (1988), and we will not disturb their credibility assessment. Ellis v. State, 219 Ark. 430, 652 S.W.2d 35 (1983).\na. Murder\nSmith was charged with capital murder in that he \u201cwith the premeditated and deliberated purpose of causing the death of another person, he causes the death of any person,\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-10-101 (a)(4) (Supp. 1991), and convicted of the lesser included offense of first degree murder in that he \u201cwith a purpose of causing the death of another person, he causes the death of another person.\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-10-102(a)(2) (Supp. 1991). On the first degree murder conviction, Smith\u2019s argument is that the evidence contained numerous conflicts which cast doubt on Turner\u2019s version of events. He reasserts his trial defense, that he fired the shots in self-defense, and implies that the inconsistencies make his version of the story the more credible. He argues we must reverse because of this failure in the burden of proof.\nThis .Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, and we look only to the evidence which supports the verdict Bennett v. State, supra. We will not assume Smith\u2019s version of the story is true, and while the version of the story given by Turner does conflict with the testimony of Magness, it is more consistent with the physical evidence taken from the scene than Smith\u2019s testimony. In any event the jury was presented with the conflicts, instructed on self-defense, and informed it was to resolve inconsistencies and determine witness credibility. Lewis v. State, supra.\nb. Assault and battery\nSmith also argues on the other two convictions that his shooting at Turner and hitting her were all in self-defense. Again, he asks us to view the evidence in the light most favorable to his story, which is not the proper standard; even his version of the events has him chasing down and striking Turner in the head with his gun after she ran out of bullets. The evidence was sufficient to create a credibility question for the jury. The jury alone determines the weight to be given the evidence, and may reject or accept any part of it. Robertson v. State, 304 Ark. 32, 802 S.W.2d 448 (1991).\n2. Rule 11 if)\nSmith has not complied with the requirement of Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals 11(f) by abstracting all objections decided adversely to him in this life sentence case. Nor has the Attorney General given us any indication of assurance of compliance with the Rule.\nDespite these apparent failures to adhere to the Rule, we have chosen not to return the case for rebriefing, which would entail substantial delay. The record has been carefully reviewed here, and no errors prejudicial to Smith have been found.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Gene Worsham, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Didi Sailings, for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "David Morris SMITH v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 91-244\n824 S.W.2d 838\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered February 24, 1992\nGene Worsham, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Didi Sailings, for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0390-01",
  "first_page_order": 418,
  "last_page_order": 421
}