{ "id": 3798854, "name": "Quenton GAYE v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Gaye v. State", "decision_date": "2006-11-16", "docket_number": "CR 06-629", "first_page": "39", "last_page": "43", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "368 Ark. 39" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "243 S.W.3d 275" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "351 Ark. 667", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1158873 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2003, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/351/0667-01" ] }, { "cite": "278 Ark. 478", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1748066 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1983, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/278/0478-01" ] }, { "cite": "358 Ark. 212", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8451867 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2000, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/358/0212-01" ] }, { "cite": "338 Ark. 178", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 243448 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1999, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "holding that one eyewitness's testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a capital-murder case" }, { "parenthetical": "holding that one eyewitness's testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a capital-murder case" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/338/0178-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "366 Ark. 217", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3656503 ], "weight": 7, "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/366/0217-01" ] }, { "cite": "366 Ark. 441", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3655412 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/366/0441-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 550, "char_count": 8638, "ocr_confidence": 0.743, "pagerank": { "raw": 6.789971398195007e-08, "percentile": 0.4154632181258444 }, "sha256": "dd3eb2195957ceee5bc47320ebb5448e6d3abb17252f44f6a872bd98fed254fe", "simhash": "1:381566a496add308", "word_count": 1454 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:59:17.047242+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Imber, J., not participating." ], "parties": [ "Quenton GAYE v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice.\nAppellant Quenton Gaye was convicted of capital murder in the death of Christopher Branch and three counts of terroristic act for shooting at an automobile occupied by Christopher Higgins, Andre Higgins, and Courtney Barnes. Gaye was sentenced to life without parole for the capital-murder conviction and twenty years\u2019 consecutive imprisonment for the terroristic-act convictions. From the circuit court\u2019s judgment and commitment order, this appeal arises, wherein Gaye argues only that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on the capital-murder charge. We affirm Gaye\u2019s conviction.\nThe facts of this case involve a crime spree that took place on April 13, 2005. Courtney Barnes \u2014 a life-long acquaintance of the victim, Christopher Branch, and Gaye \u2014 was an eye witness to both Branch\u2019s murder and the terroristic acts. Barnes testified that around noon that day he had lunch with Christopher Higgins and Andre Higgins at Brewster\u2019s 2 Cafe, a restaurant on Arch Street in Little Rock. As they were finishing their lunch, Gaye and an unknown male entered the restaurant and approached them. He stated that Gaye asked them why they were \u201cmessing with his sister.\u201d Barnes stated that he went to the restroom to avoid a conflict, but the owner of Brewster\u2019s soon made all the men leave the restaurant. Barnes and his friends left the area in a white Oldsmobile Cutlass Supreme automobile. As they approached the corner of 26th and Arch Street, Barnes stated that Gaye was waiting on them, standing outside of an automobile, and began shooting at the car. The car was damaged, but no one in the car was injured. A picture of the Oldsmobile was admitted into evidence. Occupant Christopher Higgins corroborated these facts at trial.\nBarnes next explained that he left the Higgins boys after the shooting and met up with the victim, Christopher Branch, and Derrick, a.k.a. D.P. While in D.P.\u2019s car, the three men went back to Brewster\u2019s for D.P. to meet up with his cousin. D.P. got out of the car to meet the cousin and advised Barnes and Branch to go get some gas. Barnes stated that he drove D.P.\u2019s car to the gas station, with Branch occupying the passenger seat. Once at the gas station, Barnes recounted that, while he and Branch were speaking with a man at the station, he was alerted to danger when he saw the man unexpectedly throw his arms in the air and run away. Barnes testified that he turned around and saw Gaye approaching them in the car, pointing a pistol at their direction. Barnes stated that he and Branch both dove out of the car, and he took off running down Roosevelt Street. Barnes stated that he then heard gunshots, and he did not see Branch after that. Barnes ran to a friend\u2019s house for safety.\nThere were other witnesses to Branch\u2019s murder, but none of the other witnesses were able to positively identify Gaye as the shooter. For instance, at trial, Theodis Kitchens testified that, while stopped at a traffic light, he heard shots and saw a man running in his direction, and saw a second man following while shooting. Fie saw Branch fall and he saw the shooter turn and walk south on Martin Luther King Drive, at which time an older model car came around and shot at Branch again. Napoleon Talley, who worked at the liquor store across the street from the gas station, attested that he witnessed the shooting as well. He stated that he heard the original gun shots and looked across the street, where he saw a male down on the ground \u201cmoving erratically.\u201d He stated that he saw the shots coming from a car, and the car had a gun barrel or rifle sticking out of it.\nGaye\u2019s defense at trial was that he had an alibi at the time of the shooting. His aunt, Diane Jones, stated that when she returned home for lunch, Gaye was there but was \u201cinto it\u201d with Branch because Branch had taken her daughter at \u201cgunpoint.\u201d In order to get Gaye out of the area, she took him over to her brother\u2019s home. Jones\u2019s brother, Walygyden Athtab, formerly Tyrone Gaye, testified that he was with Gaye for the rest of the afternoon and early evening. However, the record reflects that Jones never reported Gaye\u2019s alibi to the police, and the Prosecuting Attorney, on cross-examination, questioned why she waited until Gaye\u2019s trial to indicate that he had an alibi that day. The sole question on appeal is whether there is sufficient evidence to support Gaye\u2019s capital-murder conviction.\nGaye contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. We treat a denial of a directed verdict motion as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Terry v. State, 366 Ark. 441, 236 S.W.3d 495 (2006). When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court assesses the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and considers only the evidence that supports the verdict. Gillard v. State, 366 Ark. 217, 234 S.W.3d 310 (2006). We affirm a judgment of conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Id.\nSubstantial evidence is evidence which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id. Circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial evidence to support a conviction. U. The longstanding rule in the use of circumstantial evidence is that, to be substantial, the evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Id. The question of whether the circumstantial evidence excludes every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence is for the jury to decide. Id. Upon review, this court must determine whether the jury resorted to speculation and conjecture in reaching its verdict. Id.\nThe sum and substance of Gaye\u2019s argument is that Barnes\u2019s testimony \u201cdoes not jibe with anybody else\u2019s testimony.\u201d In other words, Gaye submits that the jury resorted to speculation and conjecture because inconsistent testimony was presented at trial. This argument is without merit.\nPursuant to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5 \u2014 10\u2014101 (a)(4) (Supp. 2003), a person commits capital murder if, \u201c[wjith the premeditated and deliberated purpose of causing the death of another person, the person causes the death of another person.\u201d According to the evidence presented at trial, Barnes testified numerous times that he saw Gaye shoot Christopher Branch. While the other witnesses to the shooting were unable to identify Gaye as the shooter, Barnes\u2019s testimony alone that Gaye was the shooter is enough to sustain his conviction. Williams v. State, 338 Ark. 178, 992 S.W.2d 89 (1999) (holding that one eyewitness\u2019s testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction in a capital-murder case).\nMoreover, Gaye\u2019s argument that Barnes\u2019s testimony is in conflict with the other witnesses\u2019 testimony must also fail. The essence of this point is that Kitchens\u2019s general description of the shooter (as a six-foot black male, weighing around 170-180 lbs) conflicts with the fact that Gaye is a large man (standing around six feet, five inches, weighing more than 300 lbs). However, when the prosecutor asked Kitchens if he was good at guessing weights, he stated, \u201cNo, at the time it was just a lot of confusion happening, and you know, you really wasn\u2019t looking, just trying to get out of the line of fire and check on the young man.\u201d Most importantly, though, it is for the jury to determine the credibility of a witness. Watson v. State, 358 Ark. 212, 188 S.W.3d 921 (2000). The jury may select to believe that Kitchens was mistaken as to Gaye\u2019s physical description, and we cannot disturb that decision on appeal. Henry v. State, 278 Ark. 478, 647 S.W.2d 419 (1983). Consequently, we must conclude that there is substantial evidence to support Gaye\u2019s capital-murder conviction.\nIn compliance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(h), the record has been examined for all objections, motions and requests made by either party that were decided adversely to Gaye, and no prejudicial error has been found. Doss v. State, 351 Ark. 667, 97 S.W.3d 413 (2003).\nImber, J., not participating.\nThe record reflects that Gaye is a large man, standing at around six feet, five inches tall, and weighing over 300 lbs. After the shooting, Theodis Kitchens gave a general description of the shooter, indicating that he was a black male around six feet, weighing around 170 - 180 lbs.", "type": "majority", "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "Jeff Rosenzweig, for appellant.", "Mike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: LeaAnnJ. Irvin, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Quenton GAYE v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 06-629\n243 S.W.3d 275\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered November 16, 2006\nJeff Rosenzweig, for appellant.\nMike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: LeaAnnJ. Irvin, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0039-01", "first_page_order": 65, "last_page_order": 69 }