Don Lamar Love v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. App. 263

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: April 30, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 263 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-24-542

Opinion Delivered April 30, 2025 DON LAMAR LOVE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE DESHA COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 21ACR-23-131]

HONORABLE CREWS PURYEAR, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge

Don Lamar Love appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon

following a jury trial in the Desha County Circuit Court. On appeal, Love challenges the

sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, the circuit court’s dismissal of a juror

for cause, and the circuit court’s denial of his request for a continuance. We affirm.

Love first argues that there was insufficient evidence that he possessed the rifle found

in his truck. This argument is not preserved for review. To preserve a challenge to the

sufficiency of the evidence, an appellant must make a specific motion for a directed verdict

that informs the circuit court of the exact element of the crime that the State has failed to

prove. Jones v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 219. Love’s directed-verdict motion simply stated that

“the State has failed to make a prima facie case that [Love] possessed a firearm.” An argument that the State has not made a prima facie case is insufficient to preserve any specific deficiency

in the State’s case for appellate review. Jones, supra. Accordingly, Love’s sufficiency-of-the-

evidence argument is not preserved for appeal.

Love next argues that the circuit court improperly granted the State’s motion to strike

a prospective juror for cause because her views would not prevent or substantially impair the

performance of her duty as a juror. During jury selection, several prospective jurors

expressed doubt about their ability or willingness to find a defendant guilty when it would

result in a prison sentence. The State eventually moved to strike Juror 44 for cause because

she stated that she could not sit in judgment in this case. The defense objected, and Juror

44 was questioned again and changed her answer several times. The court ultimately

questioned her as follows:

THE COURT: I need a definitive answer. You’ve indicated to me one way. You’ve indicated to defense counsel another way. Can you sit on this jury and decide this case?

JUROR 44: No.

The court granted the State’s motion to strike over the defense’s objection. On appeal, Love

acknowledges that Juror 44 “went back and forth a few times,” but he argues that she

ultimately told defense counsel that she would be able to find him guilty and impose a

sentence if the evidence demonstrated his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The decision to excuse a juror for cause rests within the sound discretion of the circuit

court, and its decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. McCree v. State,

2021 Ark. App. 205, 624 S.W.3d 114. An appellate court is to give great deference to the

2 circuit court that sees and hears the potential jurors. Id. When deciding whether to strike a

juror for cause, the circuit court must decide if the juror’s views would prevent or

substantially impair the performance of his or her duty as a juror. Id.

While Juror 44 did tell defense counsel that she would be able to find Love guilty and

impose a sentence, this occurred before the final exchange quoted above in which the court

asked for a definitive answer. Juror 44 changed her answer approximately eight times. Her

inability to decide and her ultimate answer of no indicate that her views would impair her

ability to perform as a juror. Accordingly, we cannot say that the circuit court abused its

discretion by striking her for cause. Additionally, we will not reverse a circuit court’s decision

to strike a prospective juror for cause absent a showing of prejudice. McCree, supra. A

defendant has no right to the service of a particular juror. Id. Rather, to demonstrate

prejudice, a defendant must show that, as a result of the circuit court’s actions, a biased or

incompetent juror was thrust upon him. Id. Love has not shown or even alleged that he

suffered prejudice from the court’s decision.

Love next challenges the circuit court’s denial of his request for a continuance. After

jury selection, the State informed the court that Love’s witness, Lisa Crockett, is a convicted

felon and needed to be advised of her right to remain silent before taking the stand to

potentially testify that the rifle found in Love’s truck was in her possession. Defense counsel

stated that Crockett had reported that she is not a felon. The court then questioned Crockett

and asked for her name, former names, and date of birth. When asked whether she had

ever been convicted of a felony, Crockett replied that she had never been to prison. Upon

3 further questioning, she acknowledged that she had received probation and a suspended

sentence for two crimes. The court concluded that she is a felon and advised her of her right

not to testify. Crockett invoked her right to remain silent.

Defense counsel then asked for a continuance, arguing that the State was

“sandbagging” the defense by waiting until the day of trial to bring up Crockett’s felony

record when the State had been notified several weeks before that she would be a defense

witness. Defense counsel also argued that the State had access to information the defense

did not regarding Crockett’s criminal record. The State argued that the defense did have

access to the online court-records database that initially revealed to the State her status as a

felon. Furthermore, the State argued that it had no duty to reveal this information to the

defense regarding a defense witness. The court ruled that the State was not required to

provide the defense with the criminal history of defense witnesses and denied the motion

for a continuance.

Love argues that it was improper for the circuit court to deny his request for a

continuance due to the State’s failure to provide the necessary information before trial. Love

suggests that the State violated Rules 17.1 through 17.3 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal

Procedure. However, Rule 17.1(a)(vi) specifies that the State’s obligation to disclose any

record of prior criminal convictions is limited to “persons whom the prosecuting attorney

intends to call as witnesses.” Love has pointed to no rule requiring the State to disclose the

criminal history of a defense witness. Moreover, the defense must use diligence and may not

rely on discovery as a complete substitute for its own investigation. Kuykendall v. State, 2024

4 Ark. App. 129, 685 S.W.3d 289. The defense’s failure to investigate Crockett’s misinformed

answer did not entitle it to a continuance.

Affirmed.

ABRAMSON and MURPHY, JJ., agree.

Vicki Lucas, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.