{ "id": 3664625, "name": "Talideen Tramal DAVENPORT v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Davenport v. State", "decision_date": "2008-03-20", "docket_number": "CR 07-1086", "first_page": "71", "last_page": "78", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "373 Ark. 71" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "281 S.W.3d 268" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "324 Ark. 158", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 9158922 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1996, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/324/0158-01" ] }, { "cite": "370 Ark. 284", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 5569853 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/370/0284-01" ] }, { "cite": "302 Ark. 116", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1884309 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1990, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/302/0116-01" ] }, { "cite": "258 Ark. 565", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1621247 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1975, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/258/0565-01" ] }, { "cite": "369 Ark. 259", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 4017243 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/369/0259-01" ] }, { "cite": "371 Ark. 25", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3490991 ], "weight": 4, "year": 2007, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/371/0025-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 652, "char_count": 13848, "ocr_confidence": 0.762, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.969366809944556e-07, "percentile": 0.8501891423013466 }, "sha256": "b7a6da695d7146d2cee934305454ed8b7abfb5a6f6b0e6c994dc026c3daf7b43", "simhash": "1:ab5939040145c012", "word_count": 2410 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:24:36.449526+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "Talideen Tramal DAVENPORT v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "PAUL E. DANIELSON, Justice.\nAppellant Talideen Tramal Davenport appeals from his convictions for capital murder and three counts of unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle and his sentence to life imprisonment without parole plus fifteen years. His sole point on appeal is that the circuit court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict. We affirm Davenport\u2019s convictions and sentence.\nA review of the record reveals that on October 2, 2005, four teenagers, T.N., L.R.J.R., andJ.S., stopped for gas at a gas station in Little Rock. While the driver, T.N., was pumping gas, a blue Jeep Cherokee pulled next to the teens\u2019 car. Comments were exchanged between the occupants of the two vehicles, and a gun was fired, killing L.R. Davenport was arrested and, ultimately, was convicted of capital murder and three counts of unlawful discharge of a firearm from a vehicle and was sentenced as already set forth.\nDavenport argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict because the State did not provide substantial evidence that Davenport himself discharged a firearm from a vehicle and committed murder. He asserts that the only evidence presented at trial that he was the shooter was the testimony ofT.N., J.R., andJ.S. He contends that their in-court identifications of him were so unreliable and clearly unbelievable that this court should ignore them and overturn his conviction.\nThe State responds that substantial evidence supported Davenport\u2019s identity as the shooter. It contends that viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to it, the facts were of sufficient force and character to compel a conclusion beyond suspicion or conjecture that Davenport was the shooter. It further submits that to the extent that Davenport challenges the reliability of the identifications, that was for the jury to decide, as Davenport did not argue to the circuit court that the in-court identifications were constitutionally infirm, nor did he object or move to suppress the identifications, waiving any issue relating to any alleged defects.\nWe treat a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. See Tryon v. State, 371 Ark. 25, 263 S.W.3d 475 (2007). When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, viewing the evidence in a light most favorable to the State. See id. Substantial evidence is that 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. See id.\nHere, Davenport does not challenge the State\u2019s proof on any of the elements of the offenses charged against him, but instead urges that his motions for directed verdict should have been granted due to the fact that the witnesses\u2019 in-court identifications of him were so unreliable and unbelievable. We have held that the credibility of witnesses is a matter for the jury\u2019s consideration. See Boyd v. State, 369 Ark. 259, 253 S.W.3d 456 (2007). Where the testimony is conflicting, we do not pass upon the credibility of the witnesses and have no right to disregard the testimony of any witness after the jury has given it full credence, where it cannot be said with assurance that it was inherently improbable, physically impossible, or so clearly unbelievable that reasonable minds could not differ thereon. See Barnes v. State, 258 Ark. 565, 528 S.W.2d 370 (1975).\nHere, T.N. identified Davenport, at trial, as being the one that he saw with the gun on the evening in question. He stated that he was positive that Davenport was the one and that, at the time, Davenport was partially in the Jeep Cherokee:\nProsecutor: How certain are you of that?\nT.N.: Positive, because I seen him, he opened the door, he stepped on \u2014 he was inside the door [of the Jeep Cherokee], he stepped on a little ledge right there. He was pointing the gun over on the Jeep.\nProsecutor: Let me ask you this, was he \u2014 was his body all still in the car?\nT.N.: Like half. His legs \u2014 his leg was in the car.\nProsecutor: His legs were in the car?\nT.N.: Upper body was above.\nProsecutor: How did he get out and shoot?\nT.N.: He got up, stepped up over there, leaned over the car like this and shot.\nT.N. testified that as he drove off, J.S. jumped out of the car and ran the other way. T.N. testified that the other vehicle chased after J.S., shooting at him. He testified that L.R. had fallen into his lap and that he thought she had been shot.\nT.N. testified that while he made an identification from a photo spread shown to him by police, he \u201cwasn\u2019t sure it was the person.\u201d He then confirmed that, when he saw Davenport in the courtroom that day, he knew Davenport was \u201cthe guy\u201d \u201cbecause I felt and I seen his face and I remember his face because I had \u2014 when she told me it was a gun, he had a gun, I had looked up and looked him dead in his eyes and I seen him.\u201d T.N. further stated that Davenport looked as if he had lost a \u201clittle weight\u201d since the night in question, that his face was \u201cstill the same,\u201d and that he had a \u201clot more hair on his head.\u201d On cross-examination, T.N. testified that he recognized Davenport \u201cwhen I walked in the door [of the courtroom]\u201d and that he was \u201cpositive\u201d that it was him. On redirect, he testified that it was not possible that he could be mistaken as to Davenport being the shooter because he remembered his face and was never going to forget it.\nJ.R. also testified that the shooter stood on a \u201clittle rail or something\u201d of the Jeep Cherokee \u201cup in the truck\u201d and pointed his gun. She testified that when he started shooting, they \u201call held our head down.\u201d She admitted that two weeks after going to the police station, she could not pick anyone out of a photo spread presented to her by the police. She then stated that she recognized the shooter when she came to court on that day:\nProsecutor: You thought you were just \u2014 let me back up. You thought you were going to introduce yourself to the ladies and gentlemen of the jury. You didn\u2019t think anyone was going to be in here at that time?\nJ.R.: No, ma\u2019am, I didn\u2019t think so.\nProsecutor: Okay. All right.\nJ.R.: And so when I came in, and then I \u2014 and then I looked that way and I saw when he bit his lip and that made me think about when he was shooting the gun, he was biting his Up.\nProsecutor: Okay.\nJ.R.: And so that made me think about it and it flashed back.\nProsecutor: Who are you talking about?\nJ.R.: The shooter.\nProsecutor: Who is that? Who is it?\nJ.R.: Him right there.\nProsecutor: Where is he sitting?\nJ.R.: (Witness pointing.)\nProsecutor: Okay. All right. Let me ask you something. Are you pointing to him just because he\u2019s black?\nJ.R.: No.\nProsecutor: Are you sure?\nJ.R.: Yes.Yes, ma\u2019am.\nProsecutor: Are you pointing to him because you feel Uke you\u2019re under pressure? And I want you to be honest with these people.\nJ.R.: No. I actually, I just I remember [sic] this part right here. I remember Uke his nose and from him biting his Up. And when he bit his Up as I walked in[to the courtroom], that made me think about it.\nProsecutor: And you say he was biting his lip as he was shooting?\nJ.R.: And it flashed back. Yes, ma\u2019am.\nProsecutor: You remember?\nJ.R.: Yes, ma\u2019am, he was biting his lip when he was shooting.\nOn cross-examination, J.R. confirmed that she told police that as soon as she saw the gun, she \u201cducked [her] head.\u201d\nFinally, J.S. testified that the shooter \u201chung out of the car and started shooting.\u201d He testified that he had \u201cpeeped\u201d at the shooter\u2019s face, seen him, and took off running. He testified that a few weeks after the shooting, he returned to the police station to look at some pictures, but could not pick the shooter out of them. He testified that the next time he saw the shooter, other than the night of the shooting, was when he came for a hearing with L.R.\u2019s mother, his godmother. He stated that a \u201cwhole bunch of inmates\u201d were on one row with people on both sides and that when he walked in, \u201cit just hit [him] all over again like he was right there shooting[.]\u201d J.S. testified that after he left the courtroom that day, he did not see the shooter again. He then identified Davenport as the shooter. He stated that he was \u201ca hundred percent\u201d certain that Davenport was the person who shot at the teens\u2019 car. He then testified that he was never going to forget the face that was shooting at him and killed his godsister.\nIn addition to the three teens\u2019 testimony set forth above, further evidence was presented that pointed to Davenport as the shooter. A.H. testified that she was at the gas station at the time of the shooting, having arrived in a separate car from that of the teens\u2019 or Davenport. She testified that while walking toward the gas station to use the restroom, she overheard \u201cwords,\u201d then saw the gun, and began running back towards her car. She admitted knowing Davenport as \u201cFat Boy.\u201d She further admitted that in her statement to police, she acknowledged that \u201cFat Boy\u201d also went by the name of \u201cTodd.\u201d She admitted that she picked him out of a photo spread presented to her by the police. At the time of trial, however, she said that she did not know if Davenport was the shooter and that she did not see his face. She did, nonetheless, admit that she told the police that he was the person shooting at the car:\nProsecutor: Is he the person that was shooting at that car?\nA.H.: I don\u2019t \u2014 I don\u2019t know.\nProsecutor: I don\u2019t- know.\nA.H.: I didn\u2019t see his face.\nProsecutor: Okay. Did you \u2014 would you agree with me that you told the police that he was?\nA.H.: Yes.\nProsecutor: You did tell the police \u2014\nA.H.: Yes, I did.\nProsecutor: \u2014 that he was the person?\nA.H.: I told them that, yes, that day.\nA.H. then testified that she lied to police because she felt pressured to do so.\nJoseph Ramey also testified. He testified that he was currently incarcerated in the Arkansas Department of Correction (ADC) for a sentence of sixty years. He acknowledged that he approached the prosecutor about Davenport and that, in exchange for Ramey\u2019s testimony, the prosecutor would send a letter to the parole board or the judge informing them about his cooperation in the case and would send a letter to ADC asking it to keep him housed at a certain unit. He testified that, while housed with Davenport at the county jail, Davenport told Ramey that he needed to lose weight so he would not \u201clook like Fat Boy.\u201d He further testified that Davenport gave his food away every day and that Davenport showed him the police files in his case, which Davenport had acquired through discovery.\nRamey testified that Davenport showed him in the police files where A.H. initially told police that she thought Davenport was the shooter and where she later stated that \u201cit was definitely him.\u201d He stated that Davenport told him that \u201c[h]e was trying to come up with a way to get her to change her story to say that she was drunk when she made the statement.\u201d He further stated that Davenport told him that \u201che had sent an affidavit to his brother and for her to fill out and send back, telling her what to say on the affidavit, changing her mind.\u201d Finally, Detective Eric Knowles testified that, when he arrested Davenport in connection with L.R.\u2019s murder, \u201che was heavier-set at the time that he was arrested[.]\u201d\nBased on the foregoing, we hold that there was substantial evidence to support the jury\u2019s verdicts, as the jury clearly found the witnesses and their identifications of Davenport credible. As the State points out, Davenport did not challenge or object to the witnesses\u2019 in-court identifications when they were made, but instead attempted to discredit their testimony on cross-examination, as he was permitted to do by the circuit court. Moreover, he merely challenges the witnesses\u2019 in-court identifications in the context of his challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Flere, there were three eyewitnesses who testified, identifying Davenport as the shooter, as well as another eyewitness\u2019s testimony that she initially identified him as the shooter and later changed her story. We have held that the testimony of one eyewitness alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction. See Luckey v. State, 302 Ark. 116, 787 S.W.2d 244 (1990). Furthermore, the jury is free to believe all or part of any witness\u2019s testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. See White v. State, 370 Ark. 284, 259 S.W.3d 410 (2007). For these reasons, we affirm.\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 Davenport, and no prejudicial error has been found.\nAffirmed.\nPretrial, defense counsel made a comment to the circuit court regarding the possibility of in-court identifications; however, no specific objection was made, and the circuit court stated that it would allow the defense to \u201ctake care of that on your cross-examination.\u201d A review of the record reveals that no objection was made during any of the witnesses\u2019 testimony challenging their in-court identifications.\nin his brief, Davenport cites to factors he asserts are used by this court to determine the reliability of an in-court identification. However, that analysis is used where a challenge has been made to the admissibility of a pretrial identification as unduly suggestive. See, e.g. Bohanan v. State, 324 Ark. 158, 919 S.W.2d 198 (1996). There was no pretrial identification challenged in the instant case.", "type": "majority", "author": "PAUL E. DANIELSON, Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "James Law Firm, by: William O. \"Bill\u201d James, Jr., for appellant.", "Dustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Laura Shue, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Talideen Tramal DAVENPORT v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 07-1086\n281 S.W.3d 268\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered March 20, 2008\nJames Law Firm, by: William O. \"Bill\u201d James, Jr., for appellant.\nDustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Laura Shue, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0071-01", "first_page_order": 97, "last_page_order": 104 }