{ "id": 1455995, "name": "Montay ROBINSON v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Robinson v. State", "decision_date": "1994-09-19", "docket_number": "CR 94-290", "first_page": "33", "last_page": "36", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "318 Ark. 33" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "883 S.W.2d 469" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "307 Ark. 482", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1902476 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/307/0482-01" ] }, { "cite": "317 Ark. 17", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1443825 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/317/0017-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-202", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(1)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-403", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-10-102", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1993, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)(2)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "317 Ark. 636", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1443842 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1994, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/317/0636-01" ] }, { "cite": "313 Ark. 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1914580 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/313/0478-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 359, "char_count": 4907, "ocr_confidence": 0.877, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.2110679779197637e-07, "percentile": 0.5959839743552616 }, "sha256": "02e215a04a5b539f78cbcd7f7ca338bc9a09f2d60308147dd6d399569cbe5404", "simhash": "1:bfafc58598220b5a", "word_count": 827 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:28:16.788487+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Montay ROBINSON v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nOn April 9, 1993, appellant Montay Robinson was charged, along with Cedric Bradley and Pierre Bradley, with the first degree murder of Terrence Taylor. On his motion, Robinson\u2019s case was severed from the Bradleys\u2019. At trial on November 23, 1993, Robinson was convicted as charged and the jury fixed Robinson\u2019s sentence at forty years in the Department of Correction. Robinson\u2019s sole point for reversal is that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction.\nRobinson timely and specifically moved for a directed verdict at the end of the state\u2019s case and after he rested his case, Robinson claimed the state had failed to show purposeful conduct on his part. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 36.21(b). Directed verdict motions are treated as challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Walker v. State, 313 Ark. 478, 855 S.W.2d 932 (1993).\nThe test on appeal is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Riggins v. State, 317 Ark. 636, 882 S.W.2d 664 (1994). Substantial evidence is evidence that is of sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion without resorting to suspicion and conjecture. Id. In determining whether substantial evidence exists, we review only the evidence that supports the conviction and do not weigh it against other conflicting proof favorable to the accused. Id.\nAt trial, the court instructed the jury on murder in the first degree, stating that, to sustain the charge, the state must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Robinson, or an accomplice, with the purpose of causing the death of another person, did cause the death of Terrence Taylor. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-10-102(a)(2) (Repl. 1993). Accomplice was defined for the jury as one who directly participates in the commission of an offense or who, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of an offense, solicits, advises, encourages or coerces the other person to commit the offense, or aids, agrees to aid, or attempts to aid the other person in planning or committing the offense. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-403 (Repl. 1993). Also, the court correctly instructed that a person acts with purpose with respect to his conduct or as a result thereof when it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-202(1) (Repl. 1993). In addition, we mention the settled rule that intent or state of mind is seldom capable of proof by direct evidence and must usually be inferred from the circumstances of the killing. Robinson v. State, 317 Ark. 17, 875 S.W.2d 837 (1994); Walker, 313 Ark. 478, 855 S.W.2d 932.\nHere, we hold the evidence is more than sufficient to support Robinson\u2019s conviction. The state\u2019s proof showed that Robinson and the Bradleys were seen carrying weapons outside the Tangerine Club located in the College Station neighborhood in Little Rock. Pierre Bradley and Robinson were seen carrying 9 millimeter guns and Cedric possessed a .44 pistol. Approximately an hour later, a fight broke out in the club after Robinson\u2019s friend and others in the club began \u201cthrowing up\u201d gang signs at each other. It was described as though \u201cthey were fighting with gang signs.\u201d\nWhen someone started to hit the club\u2019s bouncer, Darrell Als, with a chair, Als said that he shot a .25 bullet into the floor. Everyone then began to run outside. Als saw Taylor running from the club when Taylor bumped Robinson. Als said that both Robinson and Taylor fell and Robinson\u2019s gun discharged. Taylor got up, and was running away from Robinson when Als saw Robinson and the Bradleys firing toward Taylor. Another club employee, Mr. Burton, also saw Robinson shooting at Taylor. Als testified that he saw only Robinson and the Bradleys outside the club, and they were all shooting at Taylor. Tracy James testified that Robinson and the Bradleys were the only ones he saw with guns. While Als never saw Taylor actually shot, Als found him outside the club after the shooting stopped; he then witnessed Taylor had been shot. The state medical examiner confirmed Taylor had been shot and the bullet went through his body. He opined that the bullet wound was the cause of Taylor\u2019s death.\nFrom the above evidence, the state established that, at the least, Robinson aided the Bradleys in the commission of the crime. None of the three men\u2019s culpability was affected by which one\u2019s bullet actually killed Taylor. When two or more persons assist one another in the commission of a crime, each is an accomplice and criminally liable for the conduct of both. Purifoy v. State, 307 Ark. 482, 822 S.W.2d 374 (1991).\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Bret Qualls, for appellant.", "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Montay ROBINSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 94-290\n883 S.W.2d 469\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 19, 1994\nWilliam R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Bret Qualls, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0033-01", "first_page_order": 63, "last_page_order": 66 }