CORNELL BROWN v. STATE OF ARKANSAS

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: October 9, 2025
• Docket: CR-25-79
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. 147 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-25-79

Opinion Delivered: October 9, 2025

CORNELL BROWN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 46CR-22-36]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE WREN AUTREY, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED.

RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice

Cornell Brown appeals the sufficiency of the evidence for his capital-murder

conviction. He argues that his alibi overcame the State’s evidence placing him at the crime

scene. Thus, he contends there was insufficient evidence for the jury to determine that he

was the individual who committed the murder. Because we find there was substantial

evidence for the jury to identify and convict him of capital murder, we affirm.

I. Background

The State presented the following evidence. On September 19, 2021, Cornell Brown

asked his wife to help him get time off from work. Then he left in their vehicle and drove

from Memphis to Texarkana. Importantly, their vehicle was a silver Nissan that had a black

panel over the front fender. The next day, September 20, Keith McFadden was shot and

killed in Texarkana as he left a poker game. McFadden had a bag of marijuana, several

thousands of dollars in cash, a Rolex watch, a necklace, and two cell phones with him. Security footage captured critical events. It depicted a black man wearing a dark shirt,

light-colored shorts, and white tennis shoes chasing McFadden right before he was shot.

Witnesses who ran to help identified a light gray car fleeing the scene. McFadden’s money

and Rolex watch were missing. Another security camera recorded a silver car with a unique

black panel entering a Walmart parking lot that night. Shortly after, a female placed a white

bag into the trash bin.

Law enforcement obtained McFadden’s wallet which was found in the Walmart trash

bin. They also retrieved the white bag. Among the items inside were (1) a pair of light-

colored shorts with the victim’s blood (that matched those worn by the individual chasing

the victim); (2) a pair of black gloves with both the victim’s and Brown’s DNA; (3) white

bloodstained tennis shoes (in Brown’s size that again matched those on the video); and (4)

an empty drink bottle with Brown’s wife’s DNA. The gym shorts had a laundry tag that

was traced to Courtney Hope. Hope was a member of Loyalty Cash Business, a gang upset

with McFadden’s gambling winnings.

The night of the shooting, a member of Loyalty Cash Business gave Carl Oliver a

bag of money and a flip phone and told him to wait for a call. Oliver testified that he

received a call and met Brown at a gas station in Arkansas. He exchanged the money for a

bag containing a Rolex watch and a bracelet. Oliver stated that the watch, which he later

sold, had blood on it. The next day, Brown returned to Memphis and gave his wife about

two thousand dollars. He also posted a photograph of himself on Facebook holding two

stacks of money up to his face.

2 Subsequently, Brown was arrested. After his arrest, a Cash App account associated

with Loyalty Cash Business transferred $2,500 to Brown’s wife. She attempted to arrange a

false alibi for Brown. She also testified that her Glock 19 was missing. On a phone call,

Brown told her to “check on Angel.” Angel was their deceased dog that had been buried

in their backyard and was also his wife’s name for her Glock. The weapon and ammunition

were discovered buried in the backyard. Firearm and tool mark analysis showed that seven

spent ammunition-cartridge cases recovered from the scene of the shooting were from

Brown’s wife’s Glock.

Brown and his mother both testified that he was in Memphis on the day of the

shooting as alibi testimony. He moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State had not

presented sufficient evidence identifying him as the killer. The circuit court denied the

motion, the jury convicted him of capital murder, and the court sentenced him to life

imprisonment without parole.1 Brown appeals.

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence

Brown argues that, with the alibi testimony, the evidence to identify him as the

shooter was insufficient to support the jury’s verdict of capital murder. Thus, the circuit

court should have granted his motion for a directed verdict.

On appeal, we treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency

of the evidence. McClendon v. State, 2019 Ark. 88, at 3, 570 S.W.3d 450, 452–53. We look

1 We note that the jury also convicted Brown of employing a firearm as a means of committing capital murder under Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-90-120 (Supp. 2023). Yet the circuit court released the jury before having it sentence Brown for the firearm enhancement. The State then moved to withdraw and set aside the firearm enhancement, which the circuit court granted.

3 at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only evidence that

supports the verdict. Finley v. State, 2019 Ark. 336, at 2, 587 S.W.3d 223, 226. We will

affirm a verdict that is supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence that is of

sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion

without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id.

Brown contends that the jury could not find him guilty if the State did not present

“testimony or evidence . . . that conclusively identified” him as the perpetrator. We disagree

because that is not the standard. On appeal, we do not require that the evidence conclusively

identify a defendant as the perpetrator. Rather, as stated above, we will affirm if substantial

evidence supports the jury’s conclusion. Here, there was substantial evidence for the jury to

conclude that Brown was the perpetrator without it resorting to speculation. What follows

is that substantial evidence.

Brown’s DNA was found, along with the victim’s, on bloodstained gloves linked to

the murder. The DNA expert’s report stated that the DNA profile on the glove sample

matched Brown’s profile within a scientific certainty. The murder weapon was found buried

in Brown’s backyard. Further, Brown drove a car matching the unique description of the

vehicle at the crime scene and the one seen at Walmart. And Carl Oliver identified Brown

as the man who sold him the bloodstained Rolex watch. This was substantial evidence, and

the jury did not need to speculate to conclude that Cornell Brown committed the murder.

As we have explained, it is for the jury to weigh the evidence and resolve credibility

disputes and reach reasonable conclusions. Bush v. State, 2024 Ark. 77, at 7, 687 S.W.3d

570, 574. Although Brown raises his alibi testimony to support his claim, when a sufficiency

4 of the evidence challenge is raised on appeal, we will consider only the evidence that

supports the jury verdict. McClendon, 2019 Ark. 88, at 5, 570 S.W.3d at 453. Because the

circuit court did not err in denying Brown’s motion for a directed verdict, we affirm.

III. Rule 4-3(a) Review

In compliance with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(a), we have examined the

record for all objections, motions, and requests made by either party that the circuit court

decided adversely to the appellant. No prejudicial error has been found.

Affirmed.

Rolfe Law Firm, P.A., by: Lott Rolfe IV, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: A. Evangeline Bacon, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.