Demontrey Herron v. State of Arkansas

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: May 6, 2026
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 276 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-25-677

DEMONTREY HERRON Opinion Delivered May 6, 2026

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 52CR-23-321]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JOHN THOMAS APPELLEE SHEPHERD, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

ROBERT J. GLADWIN, Judge

Appellant Demontrey Herron appeals from his July 23, 2025 conviction by an

Ouachita County jury for aggravated robbery for which he was sentenced to twelve years’

imprisonment. His sole argument on appeal is that the circuit court erred in denying his

motion for directed verdict because the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction.

We affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

On October 30, 2023, Faye Hopson was working at Express Liquor in Camden,

Arkansas, where she had been employed for seventeen years. At 10:07 a.m., a man walked

into the store with a t-shirt wrapped around his head, pointed a gun at Hopson, and

demanded that she give him all the money. After taking the cash out of one register, he asked

her about the other register. She told him that the remainder of the money was in the back. With the gun pointed at Hopson, the robber took her to the back room, grabbed the cash

drawer, and ordered her to the ground. She complied, and the robber ran out the front door

with the cash drawer in hand.

Hopson immediately called 911. Officer Todd Joffrion of the Camden Police

Department (“Camden PD”) arrived within two minutes of her call. Hopson met him at the

door, relayed the events that had occurred, and described the robber as a black male wearing

dark clothing with something wrapped around his face—his eyes, nose, and top lip exposed.

In a field behind the store, officers found cash strewn around. Some of it was clipped

together and sorted by denomination like the cash in the liquor store. Found in the same

field was a t-shirt with the words “Camden Housing Authority” on it. Although it had been

raining the previous night and the morning of the robbery, the t-shirt had dry spots on it,

indicating that it had not been in the field very long. During their review of surveillance

footage from the seventeen cameras in and around the liquor store, officers saw that the

visible part of the t-shirt the robber was wearing had “Camden” written on it in the same

lettering as the one found outside the liquor store.

The Camden PD posted images of the robber on social media in an attempt to

identify him. Jonathan Cooper saw the image online and recognized the person as Herron,

who was his brother’s friend. Although Cooper was employed by the Camden PD at the

time, he had not been told that Herron was a suspect, been provided with the image before

seeing it on social media, or been made aware that a robbery had occurred. After recognizing

Herron on social media, Cooper visited Herron’s mother, Sonya White, who at the time

2 lived at a complex run by the Camden Housing Authority. He showed her the image the

police had posted on social media.

On November 1, Herron was arrested and charged with aggravated robbery in

violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-12-102 (Repl. 2013), a Class Y felony, and

theft of property (less than $1,000) in violation of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-36-

103 (Supp. 2023), a Class A misdemeanor. The next day, the police collected a buccal swab

from him. The DNA from Herron’s buccal swab matched the DNA on the t-shirt found in

the field. The amount of Herron’s DNA on the t-shirt showed he was the person who had

the most contact with the piece of clothing. Although there was another minor component

of DNA on the t-shirt, there was too little DNA to identify a match.

On December 28, Herron was charged by felony information with one count of

aggravated robbery stemming from the October 30, 2023 robbery of the Express Liquor

store.

A jury trial was held on April 29, 2025. The first witness for the State was Officer

Joffrion. He testified that on October 30, 2023, while on day shift, he received a call around

10:30 a.m. about a robbery in progress at Express Liquor. Officer Joffrion explained that he

was the first officer at the scene and found Hopson inside the store, visibly shaken. He

testified that Hopson reported that a man had come into the store, pointed a gun at her,

and taken money from the registers, including removing the actual drawer from one register.

Officer Joffrion further detailed the description of the robber that Hopson gave him as a

black male wearing dark clothing, approximately five feet seven or five feet eight, with

3 something wrapped around his face. The body-camera video of his interaction with Hopson

was admitted and played. Officer Joffrion acknowledged that he did not search for

fingerprints and that Hopson did not identify the suspect by name.

Man Preet Singh Kang testified that he had owned Express Liquor for roughly the

past ten years and that Hopson had worked there since he bought it. He noted that Hopson’s

last day working there was October 30, 2023, the day of the robbery. He testified that Hopson

was a great employee and that she worked most of her shifts alone unless it was the weekend.

On October 30, 2023, he received a call from Hopson around 10:30 a.m. during which she

sounded distressed and stated that she had just been robbed at gunpoint. He testified that

he immediately went to the store and found that officers had already arrived. Hopson stated

that she was fine, and he gave her a ride home. He testified that he then went back to the

store and helped police obtain the surveillance footage from the store. He noted that there

was a total of seventeen cameras inside and outside the store, which showed the individual

robbing the store. He pointed out that approximately $900 was taken from the store and

that the store always starts the morning with $1,500. Several videos of different angles from

the surveillance system were admitted and played. He also testified that over the years, the

store had employed others besides Hopson and that only employees knew that the store

always started the day with $1,500. He confirmed that Herron had never been an employee

of the store. He also noted that no merchandise was taken, only cash.

Sergeant Ashley Watts with the Criminal Investigations Division of the Camden PD

testified that she responded to a robbery call at Express Liquor on October 30, 2023, at

4 approximately 10:30 a.m. She took photos of the crime scene, and fifteen photos were

admitted. Officer Watts testified that evidence—specifically a trail of cash—was located in an

open field on the south side of the building. Officer Watts testified that she followed the

trail through the field to the creek before the railroad tracks, finding cash along the way. She

noted that conditions that day were damp because it had just rained. Officer Watts explained

that they also found and collected a black t-shirt along the trail in the field and that appeared

out of place because it was dry. Officer Watts testified that a still photo was taken from the

surveillance video and that it appeared that the word “Camden” was on the material that

was wrapped around the suspect’s head. She noted that the black t-shirt found in the field

was a Camden Housing Authority t-shirt with the same colors and same lettering as the shirt

wrapped around the suspect’s head. Another still photo showed the suspect carrying a

register drawer with cash in his right hand and a firearm in his left hand. A third still

photograph was taken and disseminated to officers to show to the public in an attempt to

identify the suspect. Officer Watts testified that in this photo, the suspect’s head is covered

with a black t-shirt, but his eyes, nose, and top lip area are exposed. She testified that the

suspect had a very distinguishing nose. Officer Watts testified that she collected the black t-

shirt, properly sealed it, and sent it to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory (“Arkansas Crime

Lab”). Officer Watts also confirmed that she collected Herron’s and Steven Louis’s buccal

swabs, which were also properly sealed and sent to the Arkansas Crime Lab for comparison.

On cross-examination, Officer Watts also confirmed that no attempt had been made

to collect any fingerprints from the store because of the high volume of traffic––even

5 thoughthe suspect was not wearing gloves. Officer Watts specified that $210 in cash was

collected from the trail in the field and that the remaining missing cash was never recovered.

She noted that the black shirt was not wet, but it was damp. Officer Watts also confirmed

that there were five housing authorities in Camden, one a mile away in the direction of the

trail searched, and one just across the street near the liquor store. Officer Watts testified that

no firearm was ever recovered, and she could not describe the make or model of the firearm

in the video. Officer Watts also acknowledged that a search warrant was executed at Herron’s

residence and that no firearms—or anything firearm related—were found. Finally, Officer

Watts confirmed that the t-shirt found was a size large.

Herron’s mother, Sonya White, testified that in October 2023, she lived in the

housing authority at 27 Riverside Courts. She stated that Herron did not live with her and

did not come visit her there. She testified that she did not know where Herron was living.

White confirmed that in October 2023, Jonathan Cooper came to see her about Herron.

White testified that Cooper showed her a photo and that it looked like Herron. She said

that she loves her son and would do anything for him but would not lie for him.

Tessa Prost, a forensic DNA analyst with the Arkansas Crime Lab, explained that she

analyzed the two buccal swabs and swabs from the black t-shirt. Prost testified that one swab

from the t-shirt had DNA consistent with two individuals, a major and minor component.

Prost testified that the minor component was inconclusive because there was too little DNA

for testing, but the major male component was consistent with Herron. Prost explained that

DNA can be transferred to a shirt from touch transfer, such as wearing it, or through

6 biological fluids. Prost testified that on a second swab from the shirt, the report indicated

that there was DNA from more than one individual, but it was inconclusive. She

acknowledged that it could not be determined how many more individuals, just that it was

more than one. Prost confirmed that DNA can come from all kinds of sources, and DNA

can degrade when it is out in the weather. She acknowledged that if someone was walking

along the trail and spit on the shirt, DNA from the saliva could transfer to the shirt, but a

major contributor of DNA would likely be someone who had more significant contact with

the item.

Ashley Stinnett with the Camden PD testified that she transported the properly sealed

evidence collected in the case from the evidence room in Camden to the Arkansas Crime

Lab.

Jonathan Cooper testified that he previously had resided in Ouachita County and

worked for Camden PD. After the robbery, Cooper came on duty and obtained a photo

from the Camden PD website of the robbery suspect. Cooper noted that he had no

relationship with Herron but saw him at the high school he and his brother attended, and

Herron was friends with Cooper’s younger brother. He stated that he knew Herron well

enough that whenever he saw him at Walmart, he would give him a “hand up,” and he

testified that, had he seen Herron in October 2023, he would have recognized him. Cooper

looked at the photo and identified the person as Herron. He denied that other law

enforcement had given him the suspect’s identity before he saw the photo. He explained that

7 he knew White from seeing her around and growing up in her neighborhood. He testified

that he went to see White in October 2023.

Hopson testified that she arrived at work around 8:00 a.m. and was there by herself

as usual. Hopson stated that there are two registers in the store and that she had to set them

up with $250 in each drawer. Hopson testified that on the morning of the robbery, a man

came in and pointed a gun at her. She explained that she did not recognize the person and

that he had a scarf wrapped around his head so that she could see only his nose and eyes.

Hopson stated that the man’s nose stood out to her. Hopson testified that she was mentally

injured from the incident but sustained no physical injuries. She pointed out that she was

never struck or hit but that the incident was scary. Hopson confirmed that no weapon was

ever fired.

The State rested, and Herron moved for a directed verdict, arguing specifically that

the jury would have to rely on speculation and conjecture to determine that a firearm was

used or that any individual identified was Herron. Counsel noted that there was DNA from

multiple people on the shirt and that it was found outside on a trail where anyone could

have walked. Counsel pointed out that Cooper, the only witness who positively identified

Herron, knew him only casually and identified him from a “fuzzy” photo. The State

responded that Cooper specifically identified Herron and that White said it looked like him.

The State noted that the t-shirt was located near the scene and appeared to be the one worn

by the robber because of the color and style of lettering. The State pointed out that the

8 robber appeared to be holding an actual gun and was pointing it like a gun. Herron’s motion

was denied.

The defense did not present any evidence, but the motion for directed was renewed

and again denied. The parties presented closing arguments, the jury was instructed, and the

case was submitted for deliberation. The jury returned with a verdict of guilty on one count

of aggravated robbery. After the sentencing hearing, the jury ultimately sentenced Herron to

twelve years’ incarceration. The sentencing order was filed on July 23, 2025, and a notice of

appeal was timely filed on July 30.

II. Standard of Review

A motion for directed verdict is treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the

evidence. Muhammad v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 184, ___ S.W.3d ___. In reviewing a

sufficiency challenge, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and

consider only the evidence supporting the verdict. Lever v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 560, 725

S.W.3d 819. We affirm if substantial evidence supports the conviction. Id.

Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character to compel a

conclusion without resort to speculation or conjecture. Id. Circumstantial evidence may

constitute substantial evidence if it is consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent

with any other reasonable conclusion. See Oliger v. State, 2025 Ark. 8, 704 S.W.3d 305.

Whether the evidence excludes every other reasonable hypothesis is a question for the jury.

See Break v. State, 2022 Ark. 219, 655 S.W.3d 303.

9 The law makes no distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence when

appellate courts review the sufficiency of the evidence. See Owens v. State, 2017 Ark. App.

353, 525 S.W.3d 480.

III. Discussion

Herron contends that the evidence identifying him as the robber was insufficient and

required the jury to speculate. He emphasizes that the victim, Hopson, could not identify

him, the DNA evidence implicating him was not exclusive, and the remaining proof was

merely circumstantial. We disagree.

A. Direct Evidence of Identity

Contrary to Herron’s argument, this case does not rest solely on circumstantial

evidence. The jury viewed surveillance videos and still photographs showing the robber with

partially visible facial features. The jury was entitled to compare those images with Herron’s

appearance in court and determine the robber’s identity.

Additionally, two witnesses familiar with Herron––Cooper and White––identified

him as the individual depicted. This court has held that such testimony, even from witnesses

not present at the crime, may constitute substantial evidence of identity. See Jones v. State,

2019 Ark. App. 350, 582 S.W.3d 859 (holding identification by two acquaintances from

video sufficient). The credibility of these witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony

were matters for the jury. See Break, supra.

B. Circumstantial Evidence Supporting the Verdict

10 The circumstantial evidence in the record before us further corroborates the

identification of Herron. The robber had a black t-shirt with distinctive lettering wrapped

around his head. A matching shirt was found along the escape route with cash taken from

the store. And Herron was identified as the major contributor of DNA found on that t-shirt.

While Herron argues that the DNA could have been transferred innocently or that

the t-shirt could have belonged to someone else, the jury was not required to accept these

alternative explanations. The question is not whether the evidence could support another

hypothesis but whether the jury had to resort to speculation to reject it. See Break, supra.

Here, the proximity of the t-shirt to the crime scene, its similarity to the one worn

during the robbery, and Herron’s DNA as the major contributor provided strong

circumstantial evidence linking him to the robbery.

C. Totality of the Evidence

When viewed collectively, the evidence included the following: surveillance images

showing the robber’s partially visible face; identification by two witnesses familiar with

Herron; the escape-route recovery of clothing matching that worn by the robber; and DNA

evidence on that clothing identifying Herron as the major contributor. This evidence was

sufficient to permit the jury to conclude, without speculation or conjecture, that Herron was

the robber.

Although Herron relies on cases involving purely circumstantial evidence and

competing reasonable hypotheses, this case involves both direct and circumstantial proof.

11 Even in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the determination of whether alternative

hypotheses are reasonable is for the jury. See, e.g., Break, supra.

The jury was free to reject Herron’s proposed explanations of innocence and to find

that the evidence excluded every reasonable hypothesis other than guilt. Viewing the

evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we hold that substantial evidence supports

Herron’s conviction. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in denying the motion for

directed verdict.

Affirmed.

KLAPPENBACH, C.J., and HIXSON, J., agree.

Law Offices of John Wesley Hall, by: Samantha J. Carpenter, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Mallory Wood, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.