Evans v. State

2011 Ark. 33, 378 S.W.3d 82, 2011 Ark. LEXIS 34
CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas
DecidedFebruary 3, 2011
DocketNo. CR 10-936
StatusPublished
Cited by6 cases

This text of 2011 Ark. 33 (Evans v. State) 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
Evans v. State, 2011 Ark. 33, 378 S.W.3d 82, 2011 Ark. LEXIS 34 (Ark. 2011).

Opinion

PAUL E. DANIELSON, Justice.

| TAppellant Cleveland Evans appeals from his conviction for capital murder and his sentence to life imprisonment without parole. His sole point on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction. We affirm Evans’s conviction and sentence.

On the evening of October 8, 2008, police responded to a call from a residence on Ward Street in Wrightsville, Arkansas, where they found Deshon Pride lying on the living-room floor dead from a gunshot wound. Evans was developed as a suspect in the shooting, and he turned himself in to the police the next morning. On July 31, 2009, an amended felony information was filed against Evans, alleging one count of premeditated and deliberated capital murder, one count of possession of a firearm by a certain person, two counts of intimidating a witness, a firearm enhancement, and that Evans was a habitual offender. A jury trial was held on June 15-16, 2010, and Evans was found guilty of capital murder and the firearm enhancement, but was acquitted on both counts of intimidating a witness. While 12Evans was charged with the firearm enhancement and the jury found it applicable, the judgment and commitment order does not reflect that enhancement, nor does it reflect that Evans was a habitual offender. As already set forth, Evans was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole, and he now appeals.

For his sole point on appeal, Evans argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for capital murder. He contends that the evidence presented by the State failed to conclusively demonstrate that he was involved in the murder. He avers that there was no credible evidence that he was the one who killed Pride, and he urges that the jury used speculation and conjecture to reach its verdict. The State, however, counters that substantial evidence plainly supports Evans’s conviction.

On appeal, we treat a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. See Johnson v. State, 375 Ark. 462, 291 S.W.3d 581 (2009). We will affirm the circuit court’s denial of a motion for directed verdict if there is substantial evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to support the jury’s verdict. See id. This court has repeatedly defined substantial evidence as “evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture.” Id. at 464, 291 S.W.3d at 583 (quoting Hoyle v. State, 371 Ark. 495, 501, 268 S.W.3d 313, 318 (2007)). Furthermore, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. See id. In addition, circumstantial evidence may provide a basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any |sother reasonable conclusion. See Marcyniuk v. State, 2010 Ark. 257, 373 S.W.3d 243. Whether the evidence excludes every other hypothesis is left to the jury to decide. See id.

Under Arkansas law, a person commits capital murder if “[w]ith the premeditated and deliberated purpose of causing the death of another person, the person causes the death of any person.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101(a)(4) (Supp.2007). Premeditated and deliberated murder occurs when it is the killer’s conscious object to cause death, and he forms that intention before he acts and as a result of a weighing of the consequences of his course of conduct. See Carmichael v. State, 340 Ak. 598, 12 S.W.3d 225 (2000). Premeditation is not required to exist for a particular length of time. See id. It may be formed in an instant and is rarely capable of proof by direct evidence but must usually be inferred from the circumstances of the crime. See id. Similarly, premeditation and deliberation may be inferred from the type and character of the weapon, the manner in which the weapon was used, the nature, extent, and location of the wounds, and the accused’s conduct. See id.

The record in the instant case reflects that there was substantial evidence to support Evans’s conviction for premeditated and deliberated capital murder. Rodney Bostic, an officer with the Pulaski County Sheriffs Office, testified that, at around 6:15 p.m. on October 8, 2008, he received a call from Roderick Pride informing him that an individual named “Dank,” who was driving a black Cadillac, was threatening to shoot Roderick’s brother, Deshon Pride. He stated that he talked to Roderick and tried to locate the car, but was unable to do so; he then continued his patrol. Officer Bostic testified that at approximately |410:48 p.m., he received another call to the same neighborhood and that, upon arrival at the residence, he saw a black male, later identified as Deshon Pride, lying on the floor of the home. He stated that while he and other officers tried to find “the suspect” by going to his home, they did not locate him; they did, however, look for and locate a black Cadillac. Officer Bostic confirmed that he was referring to Evans as the suspect.

Sergeant Serena Snead, also of the Pulaski County Sheriffs Office, testified that, upon her arrival at the scene of the shooting, she saw Deshon Pride lying on his back on the living-room floor. She testified that, after calling together the investigation team, it was learned from the other investigators that the suspect in question was known as Dank. She stated that, with knowledge that Dank was Evans, they began to search for him. She too testified that a black Cadillac believed to be Evans’s was found “in between where the homicide scene was and [Evans’s] residence.”

Lepolen Sanders, Jr., testified that Dank, whom Sanders identified in court as Evans, stopped his car in the street between Sanders’s house and Pride’s house during the daytime on the day that Pride was killed. He testified that Evans was driving a black Cadillac and inquired as to whether he had seen Pride.1 Sanders stated that Evans had a rifle and that Evans blew his horn several times and drove off after no one came to the door. He then testified that he told Roderick Pride that Evans was looking for Roderick’s brother with a gun.

Talisha Baker, who was Pride’s girlfriend, testified that, on the day Pride was killed, |fiEvans came by her aunt’s house where she was and asked her if she had seen Pride. She testified that Evans asked her to put his telephone number into her phone and to call him when she next saw Pride, but she declined. She then testified that Evans told her that he was going to kill Pride “around 10:00, 10:15” and that she should not be around or go home.

Yolanda Cunningham, Pride’s cousin, also testified. She testified that she lived next door to Levester Spring and Jolinda Kitchen and that, on the day Pride was killed, she saw Evans at their home with them in their front yard. She stated that she heard arguing and looked out her bedroom window, where she saw Evans holding a handgun in his hand, and she heard Evans state to Jolinda that he did not want “Vester,” but “want[ed] Shon.” She testified that Evans was driving a black Cadillac. She further testified that at about 10:15 that evening, she heard three or four gunshots, ran next door, and saw Pride lying in the doorway of Spring and Kitchen’s home.

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

Related

Stephen Dale West, Jr. v. State of Arkansas
2025 Ark. App. 182 (Court of Appeals of Arkansas, 2025)
Cleveland Evans v. State of Arkansas
2022 Ark. 31 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2022)
Evans v. State
2014 Ark. 6 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2014)
Leach v. State
2012 Ark. 179 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2012)
Williams v. State
2011 Ark. 432 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2011)
Camp v. State
2011 Ark. 155 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2011)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2011 Ark. 33, 378 S.W.3d 82, 2011 Ark. LEXIS 34, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/evans-v-state-ark-2011.