Deric Smith v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. 83, 711 S.W.3d 297
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedMay 22, 2025
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 2025 Ark. 83 (Deric Smith v. State of Arkansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Deric Smith v. State of Arkansas, 2025 Ark. 83, 711 S.W.3d 297 (Ark. 2025).

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. 83 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-22-715

Opinion Delivered May 22, 2025 DERIC SMITH APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 35CR-20-336] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE ALEX GUYNN, JUDGE

AFFIRMED.

BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice

Deric Smith appeals from a jury verdict in the Jefferson County Circuit Court finding

him guilty of capital murder in the shooting death of Emmanuel Foster, and first-degree

battery in the wounding of Jason Anderson. He received a sentence of life imprisonment

without parole for the murder and fifteen years for the battery, with firearm enhancements

of ten years and five years, respectively. All sentences were set to run consecutively. On

appeal, Smith argues that there was insufficient evidence that he committed capital murder

and that the State did not disprove the defense of justification. We affirm.

I. Facts and Procedural History

Smith was charged with the premeditated and deliberate formulation of capital

murder in accordance with Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-10-101(a)(4) (Supp. 2021).

He was also charged with first-degree battery as well as a firearm enhancement for each of

his alleged crimes. Smith raised the affirmative defense of justification. Smith’s girlfriend, Lamiesha Toney, was similarly charged and tried in the same proceeding. 1 The murder

weapon was a gun that Toney had in the front seat of Smith’s Lincoln Town Car. Both of

the victims were shot while sitting in the front seats of the Lincoln, while the car was

moving.

At the insistence of Smith’s mother, Toney and Smith surrendered to the police.

Detective Corey Wilfong interviewed Toney. Toney claimed that she shot the victims after

a scuffle initiated by Anderson, who punched her in the face. Smith came to her defense,

and Anderson grabbed her gun. Smith dislodged the gun from Anderson’s hand, and it fell

under the seat. Toney claimed that she retrieved the weapon and shot both men because

she was “scared.” Toney further stated that Anderson jumped out of the car after he was

shot. Foster remained behind the wheel but crashed into a house after he was shot in the

back of the head. Toney’s statement was admitted into evidence.

Although Toney’s statement implicated her as the shooter, other witnesses suggested

that it was Smith who fired the gun. Raven Breedlove, an eyewitness, testified that she saw

Anderson fall out of a Lincoln Town Car and noted that he was bleeding profusely. She

asked him what had happened, and he told her that “Scrappy or Strappy” had shot him.

Elise McMiller testified that she was a passenger in a car that was traveling in the

opposite direction from the Lincoln. She observed the Lincoln swerving and then

sideswiping the car in front of her. McMiller further testified that the Lincoln crashed into

1 They were both represented by the same trial counsel but waived the conflict on the record.

2 a house and that two persons got out of the vehicle and fled the scene. Those persons were

later identified as Toney and Smith.

Jessie Valdez, a traffic control officer with the Pine Bluff Police Department, testified

that he was the first police officer on the scene. He found Anderson lying in the street,

covered in blood from a bullet wound to his jaw. He asked Anderson who had shot him,

and Anderson mumbled, “Scrappy.”

Jimmeisha Palmer, a Pine Bluff Police Department crime scene tech sponsored

photographs of a large tattoo on Smith’s arm bearing his street name, “ScrapG.”

At the close of the State’s case, Smith moved for a directed verdict, arguing that there

was no evidence of premeditation. After his directed-verdict motion was denied, Smith

testified in his own defense.

Smith confirmed that he was the shooter. According to Smith, he spent the day

sipping brandy and selling marijuana. He stated that Foster and Anderson, who were

acquainted with him, wanted to steal his duffle bag full of marijuana, but he hid it at his

mother’s house. They forced him and Toney to get into the back seat of his Lincoln. In his

testimony, Smith described himself to the jury as a man who is always “very aware of

everything surrounding him” and is able to “keep a cool, level head when [he is] under

pressure.” Smith claimed that Toney tried to reach for her gun that she had purchased from

a pawn shop in Houston, but Anderson grabbed it and used it to strike him in the head.

The two men scuffled. The gun fell beneath the front seat, and Toney retrieved it. Smith

stated that he saw Toney’s hand shaking. He took the gun from her and shot Anderson.

Anderson exited the car. Smith asserted that he put the gun to Foster’s head and ordered

3 him to stop. Foster refused, and he swerved and sideswiped another vehicle as the fight over

the gun ensued. According to Smith, he saw a large gathering taking place under a blue

canopy. Foster was heading toward the gathering. Smith ordered him to stop the car.

However, Foster hit him in the neck, exclaimed “Old Crip, you better put your seatbelt on

then,” and hit the gas. Smith stated that he pushed his seat all the way back and shot Foster

in the back of his head. The car slowed immediately. Reaching the steering wheel from the

back seat, Smith managed to avoid the gathering but crashed into a house next door. He

and Toney fled. Smith maintained that he and Toney left the scene because he had a firearm

and drugs in the car.

The jury was instructed on Smith’s justification defense but convicted him as

charged. It also convicted Toney of second-degree murder and first-degree battery. See

Toney v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 3. Smith timely appealed.

II. Argument and Analysis

Smith first argues that the circuit court erred in denying his directed-verdict motion

made at the close of the State’s case. We decline to consider this argument. We have held

that a defendant waives his initial motion for directed verdict by presenting evidence in his

defense at the close of the State’s case. See Rudd v. State, 308 Ark. 401, at 406, 825 S.W.2d

565, 567 (1992); see also Key v. State, 325 Ark. 73, 76, 923 S.W.2d 865, 867 (1996). Under

those circumstances, this court decides a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence as the

evidence existed at the close of the case when he renewed his former motion. Key, 325 Ark.

at 76, 923 S.W.2d at 867. Here, Smith presented evidence in his defense after the State

rested its case. Smith’s first point on appeal is therefore unavailing.

4 Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence, as measured at the close of the trial, Smith

again argues that there was insufficient proof of premeditation. We disagree.

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

evidence. McClendon v. State, 2019 Ark. 88, at 3, 570 S.W.3d 450, 452. In reviewing this

challenge, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and consider only the

evidence that supports the conviction. Id., 570 S.W.3d at 452. We affirm the verdict if

substantial evidence supports it. Id., 570 S.W.3d at 452. Substantial evidence is evidence 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., 570 S.W.3d at 452.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Richard Gililland v. State of Arkansas
2025 Ark. App. 570 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2025)
DYLAN COLLINS v. STATE OF ARKANSAS
Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2025
Pollard v. Payne
E.D. Arkansas, 2025

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2025 Ark. 83, 711 S.W.3d 297, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/deric-smith-v-state-of-arkansas-ark-2025.