Curtis Pittman v. State of Arkansas
This text of 2024 Ark. App. 48 (Curtis Pittman v. State of Arkansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.
Opinion
Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 48 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-23-361
Opinion Delivered January 24, 2024 CURTIS PITTMAN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE LINCOLN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 40CR-22-74] V. HONORABLE JODI RAINES DENNIS, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED
WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge
Curtis Pittman appeals the sentencing order of the Lincoln County Circuit Court
convicting him of aggravated assault upon an employee of a correctional facility and
sentencing him to fifteen years’ imprisonment. Pittman’s sole point on appeal is that the
evidence was not sufficient to prove he committed the offense. We affirm.
The case arises from an event at the Varner Maximum Security Unit of the Arkansas
Department of Correction, where Pittman was imprisoned in a one-cell isolation unit. On
December 6, 2021, Captain Cantrell Bass went to Pittman’s cell to return his personal
property. Sergeant Latasha Williams accompanied him. The cell had a solid outer door and
a barred inner door, and standard procedure for returning personal property to an inmate
included having the inmate submit to handcuffs before opening the solid door. Then the
officer would enter the cell, inventory the property, and lay it across the bed. According to Captain Bass, Pittman submitted to the handcuffs, but he was angry and advised Captain
Bass to get away from his cell or he would spit on him, which Pittman did. The spit landed
on the upper-right sleeve of Captain Bass’s uniform. Captain Bass testified that inmates will
threaten officers, spit on them, and claim that they have a disease, and he said that some do
have contagious diseases. He said that he did not know at the time of the incident whether
Pittman had a contagious disease. Captain Bass said he immediately sprayed Pittman with
pepper spray and called his supervisor. Pittman was taken to the shower for
decontamination. Captain Bass said he then took a photo of his sleeve and went back to
work.
Sergeant Williams’s testimony confirmed Captain Bass’s description of the incident.
She said that Pittman was “talking crazy to Bass” and that Captain Bass told Pittman to be
quiet or he would call a supervisor. She testified that Captain Bass was looking down at the
property bag when Pittman spat on him.
Pittman testified that he and Captain Bass had “got into it” in the past and that
Captain Bass said he was “going to get [Pittman] back.” Pittman claimed that on the day of
the incident, Captain Bass entered his cell with an empty property bag acting like he was
returning property, but instead, he pulled out his can of pepper spray and sprayed him “for
no reason.” He said he did not spit on Captain Bass that day and that he and Sergeant
Williams “lied about the whole thing.”
2 The jury found Pittman guilty and recommended a sentence of fifteen years’
imprisonment. The circuit court accepted the jury’s recommendation and entered a
sentencing order on February 9, 2023. This appeal followed.
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must assess the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports
the verdict. Collins v. State, 2021 Ark. 35, at 4, 617 S.W.3d 701, 704. We affirm a conviction
if substantial evidence exists to support it. Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323, at 4, 588 S.W.3d 1,
4. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with
reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id.,
588 S.W.3d at 4. Witness credibility is an issue for the fact-finder, which may believe all or
part of any witness’s testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and
inconsistent evidence. McKisick v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 426, at 4, 653 S.W.3d 839, 843.
Pittman argues that the evidence in this case was insufficient to convict him of the
offense of aggravated assault upon an employee of a correctional facility, which requires the
following elements to be proved:
(a) A person commits aggravated assault upon a law enforcement officer or an employee of a correctional facility if:
(1) Under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the personal hygiene of the law enforcement officer or employee of the correctional facility, the person purposely engages in conduct that creates a potential danger of infection to the law enforcement officer or an employee of any state or local correctional facility while the law enforcement officer or employee of the state or local correctional facility is engaged in the course of his or her employment by causing a person whom the actor knows to be a law enforcement officer or employee of the state or local correctional facility to come into contact with saliva, blood, urine, feces, seminal fluid, or other
3 bodily fluid by purposely throwing, tossing, expelling, or otherwise transferring the fluid or material;
....
(c) As used in this section, “contact with” includes without limitation contact with the skin, a face covering, a glove, or the uniform of a law enforcement officer or employee of a correctional facility.
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-211 (Supp. 2023). Specifically, Pittman contends the evidence was
not sufficient to prove that the incident occurred because the only evidence presented was
the testimony of Captain Bass and Sergeant Williams. He argues that he testified that he did
not spit on Captain Bass and that there was no video, photo, or other physical evidence
introduced to prove the event. He also argues that no evidence was admitted to prove that
the conduct created “a potential danger of infection” since there was no evidence regarding
Pittman’s health history and no evidence of “skin contact with the spit.”
Before we address Pittman’s argument, we turn to Arkansas Rule of Criminal
Procedure 33.1, which requires a motion for directed verdict to specify how the evidence is
deficient. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c) (2023). The motion must be specific enough to apprise
the circuit court of the particular basis on which the motion is made. Scott v. State, 2015 Ark.
App. 504, at 4, 471 S.W.3d 236, 239. The reason underlying this rule is that, when specific
grounds are stated and the proof is pinpointed, the circuit court can either grant the motion
or allow the State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof. Id. at 4, 471 S.W.3d at
239. Our law is clear that a party is bound by the scope and nature of his directed-verdict
motion and cannot change the grounds on appeal. Plessy v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 74, at 3–
4 4, 388 S.W.3d 509, 513. Here, Pittman moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State
had failed to meet its burden because there were no photos, no video, and thus “no real
proof of what occurred in the cell.” Although we hold that this is sufficient to preserve for
appellate review Pittman’s challenge to the sufficiency regarding whether the incident
occurred, it is not sufficient to preserve his argument regarding whether the conduct created
a potential danger of infection.
Pittman argues that the testimony of Captain Bass and Sergeant Williams coupled
with his own complete denial of the incident is not substantial evidence that he spat on
Captain Bass. We disagree. On appeal, we consider only the evidence that supports the
verdict, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. LeFever v.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Related
Cite This Page — Counsel Stack
2024 Ark. App. 48, 682 S.W.3d 754, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/curtis-pittman-v-state-of-arkansas-arkctapp-2024.