{ "id": 377571, "name": "Vincent James HUSSEY v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Hussey v. State", "decision_date": "1998-04-16", "docket_number": "CR 97-450", "first_page": "552", "last_page": "555", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "332 Ark. 552" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "966 S.W.2d 261" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "325 Ark. 3", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 369359 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/325/0003-01" ] }, { "cite": "312 Ark. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1935017 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1993, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/312/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "331 Ark. 353", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1604806 ], "weight": 5, "year": 1998, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/331/0353-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 417, "char_count": 5735, "ocr_confidence": 0.709, "pagerank": { "raw": 8.919803056698029e-08, "percentile": 0.5005452055312878 }, "sha256": "a2c1cbdab055d151bb4697b2fcff0a30017dcd8039e8303cf91f6fdb102f3dc2", "simhash": "1:036b34491bc4c244", "word_count": 956 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:26:57.770497+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Vincent James HUSSEY v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nThis appeal is a companion case to Harris v. State, 331 Ark. 353, 961 S.W.2d 737 (1998), where we upheld the capital-murder conviction of Derrick Harris for the shooting death of Jimmy Gathings, a Monticello used-car dealer. Harris\u2019s sole point on appeal was that the State had presented testimony that was so conflicting that it was insufficient to sustain a jury verdict of guilty. We disagreed, and held that the trial court had correctly denied Harris\u2019s directed-verdict motion based on the eyewitness testimony of Albert Lambert and Jerry Majors. Both men testified that they heard \u201cpows\u201d or \u201cbanging\u201d sounds, observed Harris and another man leaving Gathings\u2019s office, and subsequently found Gathings had been shot. In Harris, we upheld the jury verdict of guilty and concluded that any incon sistencies in the witnesses\u2019 testimony went to their credibility.\nFor his first point of error, appellant Vincent Hussey challenges the trial court\u2019s denial of his motion for a directed verdict. Hussey contends the State failed to prove a robbery had been committed or that he had committed a homicidal act, thus failing to prove the charge of capital murder. However, in reviewing the record, it is clear there is sufficient evidence to support Hussey\u2019s conviction for capital murder.\nAs in Harris, Lambert and Majors testified that they heard what sounded like shots coming from Gathings\u2019s office and saw two men running from the office with pistols in their hands. Lambert and another man got in a truck and followed the two men to a nearby location where the men were picked up by others sitting in a red car. In Harris, Lambert identified Harris as the first man leaving Gathings\u2019s office. In the present case, Lambert identified Flussey as the second man. Myron Briggs testified that, on the day of Gathings\u2019s murder, he dropped Harris and Hussey off at a pool hall before the murder, and picked them up afterwards as they ran to Briggs\u2019s car. Briggs said he took them to where Hussey resided.\nMajors testified the same as he had in Harris, plus he described the second man out of Gathings\u2019s building as wearing a brown or tan flannel shirt with a red shirt underneath and a blue or black toboggan on his head \u2014 the same clothing Hussey wore the day of Gathings\u2019s murder. Scott Sherrill, a serologist, testified the red shirt Hussey wore on that day had blood stains matching Gathings\u2019s blood type.\nHussey gave officers conflicting statements that implicated him in Gathings\u2019s murder. Hussey first asserted he was not involved in the murder, but after signing a rights form, he conceded he went to Gathings\u2019s office, but said \u201canother guy pulled the trigger.\u201d In another statement, Hussey related that Harris and a man named Stanford offered Hussey and two friends $500.00 to serve as lookouts while Harris robbed Gathings\u2019s store. At trial, Hussey claimed he stood somewhere outside Gathings\u2019s building, but in an earlier statement, he said that he was stationed inside, where he saw Gathings reach for Harris\u2019s gun and Harris reacted by shooting Gathings.\nIn sum, Hussey\u2019s own pretrial statements, and even his trial testimony, were at odds with his attempts to explain his participation, if any, in the shooting death of Gathings. This court has often stated that false and improbable statements explaining suspicious circumstances are admissible as proof of guilt. Thomas v. State, 312 Ark. 158, 847 S.W.2d 695 (1993). Our court has further held that one eyewitness\u2019s testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Harris, 331 Ark. 353, 961 S.W.2d 737. In reviewing the foregoing evidence most favorable to the State, we hold that there is more than substantial evidence to support the jury verdict finding Hussey guilty. See Id.\nHussey\u2019s second and final point for reversal is that the trial court erred in ruhng he had voluntarily waived his rights and confessed. Again, Hussey\u2019s argument is without merit. In support of this point, Hussey claims that he was never given a chance to read his statements, that he was beaten by an officer before giving his statement, and that he was driven to a secluded area by an officer and at gunpoint forced to sign one of his statements. Hussey also testified that he was wearing ankle shackles and handcuffs when an officer beat and rammed Hussey\u2019s head into a window. He claimed an administrator, Barbara Pirtle, and an inmate, Scott Cruce, witnessed these events. However, not only did the officers deny such actions had taken place, but both Pirtle and Cruce testified they did not see anything that would indicate Hussey was being hurt.\nWhen reviewing the voluntariness of confessions, we make an independent determination based on the totality of the circumstances and reverse the trial court only if its decision was clearly erroneous. Kennedy v. State, 325 Ark. 3, 923 S.W.2d 274 (1996). Based upon the foregoing evidence, we are unable to say the trial court was clearly erroneous in finding Hussey\u2019s statements were a product of his own free will.\nIn accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. Rule 4-3(h), the record has been reviewed for adverse rulings objected to by appellant but not argued on appeal, and no such errors were found. For the aforementioned reasons, Hussey\u2019s judgment of conviction is affirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "William M. Howard, Jr., for appellant.", "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Gil Dudley, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen. and James Gowen, Law Student Admitted to Practice Pursuant to Rule XV(E)(l)(b) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of the Arkansas Supreme Court, under the supervision of Kelly K. Hill, Deputy Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Vincent James HUSSEY v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 97-450\n966 S.W.2d 261\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 16, 1998\nWilliam M. Howard, Jr., for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Gil Dudley, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen. and James Gowen, Law Student Admitted to Practice Pursuant to Rule XV(E)(l)(b) of the Rules Governing Admission to the Bar of the Arkansas Supreme Court, under the supervision of Kelly K. Hill, Deputy Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0552-01", "first_page_order": 578, "last_page_order": 581 }