Cite as 2026 Ark. 102 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-25-534
Opinion Delivered: May 28, 2026 ISRAEL ESTRADA CANNALTE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE INDEPENDENCE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 32CR-24-3]
HONORABLE TIM WEAVER, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED.
SHAWN A. WOMACK, Associate Justice
Israel Cannalte was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment. For reversal, Cannalte raises a single point on appeal challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting his murder conviction. Specifically, he argues that
the State failed to prove he purposely caused the death of Maximo Hernandez. We affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural Background
On December 25, 2023, Maximo Hernandez was stabbed to death with a knife and
a Phillips-head screwdriver. Cannalte and Hernandez were former roommates at a home
Hernandez rented in Batesville. Around lunchtime, Hernandez’s son and his son’s adopted
mother visited him for a couple of hours. Another former roommate of Hernandez, Saundra
Johnson, also planned on visiting him on Christmas, but he would not answer her phone
calls. Eventually, Johnson went to Hernandez’s around 9:00 or 9:30 p.m. Christmas night.
She knocked on the door. No one answered, so she left. She continued to call Hernandez,
but he never answered. The next morning, Johnson and a friend went to check on Hernandez. She again knocked on the door with no answer. She even checked with a
neighbor and asked whether the neighbor had seen Hernandez. Closer to noon, she went
back to check again. This time, she pushed the front door open. She saw Hernandez on
the floor. Because she could see blood on the floor, she did not enter and immediately
called 911.
The police arrived and found Hernandez in the living room face down in a pool of
blood with his feet partially propped up on the couch. A responding officer said the room
was in disarray. Furniture was turned over, and items were strewn on the floor. In addition,
there was blood throughout the home, including in the living room, kitchen, kitchen sink,
bathroom, and on a door in the kitchen that led outside. The blood in the bathroom was
diluted with water as if someone had washed blood off of their hands into the sink that then
dripped on the floor and the toilet. A half-folded knife that would no longer open or close
was found on the floor of the kitchen. A Phillips-head screwdriver was in the kitchen sink,
submerged in water. Given this, police asked local hospitals to be on the lookout for a
person with injuries consistent with involvement in a stabbing.
Unity Health in Newport then reported that a Hispanic male was in the emergency
room with cuts and injuries to his hand that he could not explain. An investigator arrived
at the hospital and told Cannalte, “[W]e need to chit chat, don’t we.” Cannalte responded
by hanging his head and then nodding yes. He had a deep cut to his right pinky and a large
cut to his index finger. Both appeared to be injured by a sharp object. Cannalte also
grimaced when removing his sweater as if his arm or shoulder was injured.
2 Investigators used data from cellphone towers to determine Cannalte’s location on
the day of the murder. The data showed that Cannalte was at the victim’s residence from
3:00 p.m. until 4:12 p.m. At 3:49 p.m., one of Cannalte’s children sent him a text message
asking if he was still in Batesville. Cannalte responded no almost immediately. This was
contradicted by the cellphone tower data. Around 5:00 p.m., Cannalte’s phone was no
longer signaling, indicating that it had likely been turned off or placed in airplane mode. At
5:38 p.m., the phone was back on and located in Newport. It was last used at 3:21 p.m. to
make a call.
The Arkansas State Crime Laboratory found DNA matches to Cannalte in the
victim’s home. Specifically, his blood was found on the inside and outside doorknob to a
kitchen door that led outside and on the knife located at the scene. Blood was also found
inside his truck. The probabilities that the DNA on these items could have matched a
person other than Cannalte were astronomically small, ranging from 1 in 98.1 quintillion to
1 in 11.9 decillion.
Dr. Steven Erickson of the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory conducted Hernandez’s
autopsy, determining that he died of over twenty-five stab wounds inflicted with a knife
and a Phillips-head screwdriver. He found that the cuts, scratches, abrasions, blunt injuries,
defensive wounds, and sheer number of stab wounds were consistent with a prolonged fight
in close combat. Of the stab wounds, two were determined to be fatal. One pierced
Hernandez’s heart and another severed an artery in his arm.
At trial, after the State rested, Cannalte moved for a directed verdict, arguing that
the State failed to prove that Cannalte purposely caused Hernandez’s death. Cannalte
3 claimed that, at most, the State proved he was present in the home. The circuit court denied
the motion, and the jury convicted Cannalte of first-degree murder and sentenced him to
life imprisonment. This appeal followed.
II. Standard of Review
A motion for directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.1 This
court will affirm if substantial evidence supports the conviction. 2 Substantial evidence is
that which is 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. 3 On
appeal, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, and issues of witness
credibility and conflicting proof are left to the jury.4
The trier of fact is free to believe all or part of any witness’s testimony and may
resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. 5 Further,
circumstantial evidence may provide a basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent
with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. 6 Whether
the evidence excludes every other reasonable hypothesis is for the jury to decide.7
Tait v. State, 2026 Ark. 28, at 7–8 (citing Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323, at 4, 588 1
S.W.3d 1, 4). 2 Id. (citing Edmond v. State, 351 Ark. 495, 95 S.W.3d 789 (2003)).
3 Id. (citing Dortch v. State, 2018 Ark. 135, at 5, 544 S.W.3d 518, 522).
4 Id. (citing Drennan v. State, 2018 Ark. 328, at 6, 559 S.W.3d 262, 266).
5 Id. 6 Id. (citing Howard v. State, 2016 Ark. 434, at 12, 506 S.W.3d 843, 850).
4 III. Discussion
A. Cannalte’s Sufficiency Challenge Fails
Cannalte was convicted of first-degree murder. The State presented substantial
evidence to support this conviction.
As charged in this case, “[a] person commits murder in the first degree if . . . [w]ith
the purpose of causing the death of another person, the person causes the death of another
person.”8 A person acts purposely with respect to his or her conduct or a result of his or
her conduct when it is the person’s conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or
to cause the result.9 Because of the difficulty in ascertaining intent, it is presumed that
persons intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions, and the fact-finder
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2026 Ark. 102 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-25-534
Opinion Delivered: May 28, 2026 ISRAEL ESTRADA CANNALTE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE INDEPENDENCE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 32CR-24-3]
HONORABLE TIM WEAVER, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED.
SHAWN A. WOMACK, Associate Justice
Israel Cannalte was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to life
imprisonment. For reversal, Cannalte raises a single point on appeal challenging the
sufficiency of the evidence supporting his murder conviction. Specifically, he argues that
the State failed to prove he purposely caused the death of Maximo Hernandez. We affirm.
I. Facts and Procedural Background
On December 25, 2023, Maximo Hernandez was stabbed to death with a knife and
a Phillips-head screwdriver. Cannalte and Hernandez were former roommates at a home
Hernandez rented in Batesville. Around lunchtime, Hernandez’s son and his son’s adopted
mother visited him for a couple of hours. Another former roommate of Hernandez, Saundra
Johnson, also planned on visiting him on Christmas, but he would not answer her phone
calls. Eventually, Johnson went to Hernandez’s around 9:00 or 9:30 p.m. Christmas night.
She knocked on the door. No one answered, so she left. She continued to call Hernandez,
but he never answered. The next morning, Johnson and a friend went to check on Hernandez. She again knocked on the door with no answer. She even checked with a
neighbor and asked whether the neighbor had seen Hernandez. Closer to noon, she went
back to check again. This time, she pushed the front door open. She saw Hernandez on
the floor. Because she could see blood on the floor, she did not enter and immediately
called 911.
The police arrived and found Hernandez in the living room face down in a pool of
blood with his feet partially propped up on the couch. A responding officer said the room
was in disarray. Furniture was turned over, and items were strewn on the floor. In addition,
there was blood throughout the home, including in the living room, kitchen, kitchen sink,
bathroom, and on a door in the kitchen that led outside. The blood in the bathroom was
diluted with water as if someone had washed blood off of their hands into the sink that then
dripped on the floor and the toilet. A half-folded knife that would no longer open or close
was found on the floor of the kitchen. A Phillips-head screwdriver was in the kitchen sink,
submerged in water. Given this, police asked local hospitals to be on the lookout for a
person with injuries consistent with involvement in a stabbing.
Unity Health in Newport then reported that a Hispanic male was in the emergency
room with cuts and injuries to his hand that he could not explain. An investigator arrived
at the hospital and told Cannalte, “[W]e need to chit chat, don’t we.” Cannalte responded
by hanging his head and then nodding yes. He had a deep cut to his right pinky and a large
cut to his index finger. Both appeared to be injured by a sharp object. Cannalte also
grimaced when removing his sweater as if his arm or shoulder was injured.
2 Investigators used data from cellphone towers to determine Cannalte’s location on
the day of the murder. The data showed that Cannalte was at the victim’s residence from
3:00 p.m. until 4:12 p.m. At 3:49 p.m., one of Cannalte’s children sent him a text message
asking if he was still in Batesville. Cannalte responded no almost immediately. This was
contradicted by the cellphone tower data. Around 5:00 p.m., Cannalte’s phone was no
longer signaling, indicating that it had likely been turned off or placed in airplane mode. At
5:38 p.m., the phone was back on and located in Newport. It was last used at 3:21 p.m. to
make a call.
The Arkansas State Crime Laboratory found DNA matches to Cannalte in the
victim’s home. Specifically, his blood was found on the inside and outside doorknob to a
kitchen door that led outside and on the knife located at the scene. Blood was also found
inside his truck. The probabilities that the DNA on these items could have matched a
person other than Cannalte were astronomically small, ranging from 1 in 98.1 quintillion to
1 in 11.9 decillion.
Dr. Steven Erickson of the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory conducted Hernandez’s
autopsy, determining that he died of over twenty-five stab wounds inflicted with a knife
and a Phillips-head screwdriver. He found that the cuts, scratches, abrasions, blunt injuries,
defensive wounds, and sheer number of stab wounds were consistent with a prolonged fight
in close combat. Of the stab wounds, two were determined to be fatal. One pierced
Hernandez’s heart and another severed an artery in his arm.
At trial, after the State rested, Cannalte moved for a directed verdict, arguing that
the State failed to prove that Cannalte purposely caused Hernandez’s death. Cannalte
3 claimed that, at most, the State proved he was present in the home. The circuit court denied
the motion, and the jury convicted Cannalte of first-degree murder and sentenced him to
life imprisonment. This appeal followed.
II. Standard of Review
A motion for directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.1 This
court will affirm if substantial evidence supports the conviction. 2 Substantial evidence is
that which is 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. 3 On
appeal, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, and issues of witness
credibility and conflicting proof are left to the jury.4
The trier of fact is free to believe all or part of any witness’s testimony and may
resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. 5 Further,
circumstantial evidence may provide a basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent
with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. 6 Whether
the evidence excludes every other reasonable hypothesis is for the jury to decide.7
Tait v. State, 2026 Ark. 28, at 7–8 (citing Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323, at 4, 588 1
S.W.3d 1, 4). 2 Id. (citing Edmond v. State, 351 Ark. 495, 95 S.W.3d 789 (2003)).
3 Id. (citing Dortch v. State, 2018 Ark. 135, at 5, 544 S.W.3d 518, 522).
4 Id. (citing Drennan v. State, 2018 Ark. 328, at 6, 559 S.W.3d 262, 266).
5 Id. 6 Id. (citing Howard v. State, 2016 Ark. 434, at 12, 506 S.W.3d 843, 850).
4 III. Discussion
A. Cannalte’s Sufficiency Challenge Fails
Cannalte was convicted of first-degree murder. The State presented substantial
evidence to support this conviction.
As charged in this case, “[a] person commits murder in the first degree if . . . [w]ith
the purpose of causing the death of another person, the person causes the death of another
person.”8 A person acts purposely with respect to his or her conduct or a result of his or
her conduct when it is the person’s conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or
to cause the result.9 Because of the difficulty in ascertaining intent, it is presumed that
persons intend the natural and probable consequences of their actions, and the fact-finder
may draw upon common knowledge and experience to infer intent from the
circumstances.10 The intent necessary for first-degree murder may be inferred from the type
of weapon used, the manner of its use, and the nature, extent, and location of the wounds.11
Here, the State presented substantial evidence from which the jury could conclude
that Cannalte purposely caused Hernandez’s death. Dr. Erickson testified that Hernandez
sustained more than twenty-five stab wounds inflicted with both a knife and a Phillips-head
screwdriver. The injuries included defensive wounds, blunt-force injuries, cuts, scratches,
7 Id.
8 Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-102(a)(2) (Supp. 2023).
9 Smith v. State, 2024 Ark. 1, at 6, 680 S.W.3d 711, 716.
10 Harmon v. State, 340 Ark. 18, 27, 8 S.W.3d 472, 477 (2000). 11 See supra, note 10.
5 and abrasions consistent with a prolonged close-quarters fight. The sheer number of
wounds, the use of multiple weapons, and the location and severity of the injuries permitted
the jury to infer purposeful intent to kill.12
The State also presented substantial evidence identifying Cannalte as the attacker.
Cell tower data placed him at Hernandez’s residence during the relevant time period, and
he falsely told his child by text message that he was no longer in Batesville despite data
showing he remained at the residence. The jury was free to consider this false statement as
evidence of consciousness of guilt.13 Moreover, Cannalte’s blood was found throughout
the residence, including on the inside and outside doorknobs leading from the kitchen to
the exterior of the home and on the broken knife recovered from the scene. His blood was
also found inside his truck.
Additionally, when investigators located Cannalte at a hospital shortly after the
killing, he had deep cuts on his fingers consistent with injuries sustained during a stabbing,
and he appeared to have additional injuries to his arm or shoulder. A jury could reasonably
conclude that Cannalte sustained those injuries during the violent struggle that resulted in
Hernandez’s death.
12 See Mulkey v. State, 330 Ark. 113, 117, 952 S.W.2d 149, 151 (1997) (holding that the jury could infer purposeful intent from the nature and extent of the victim’s injuries and the circumstances of the attack); see also Weatherford v. State, 2025 Ark. 150, at 8, 720 S.W.3d 843, 850.
See Robinson v. State, 353 Ark. 372, 381, 108 S.W.3d 622, 627 (2003) (holding that 13
“the jury was free to consider Robinson’s repeated lies to authorities and his changing stories about his knowledge of [the victim’s] whereabouts” as evidence of guilt).
6 Cannalte’s arguments on appeal largely ask this court to reweigh the evidence and
speculate about alternative possibilities. He contends that his presence at the residence and
the existence of his DNA in the home were unsurprising because he previously lived there.
But the jury was not required to accept that explanation, particularly given the evidence
that his blood was found on the murder weapon and throughout the home after a violent
struggle. Likewise, the fact that another unidentified DNA profile may have been present
on the knife or that no usable DNA profile was obtained from the screwdriver does not
render the evidence insufficient. Circumstantial evidence need not eliminate every
conceivable hypothesis consistent with innocence; it need only exclude every other
reasonable hypothesis, and whether it does so is a question for the jury. Here, the jury
reasonably rejected Cannalte’s explanations of innocence and concluded that the evidence
established his guilt.
Furthermore, this case is not comparable to Green v. State, 265 Ark. 179, 577 S.W.2d
586 (1979), as Cannalte claims. Unlike the defendant in Green, Cannalte was not merely
present near the scene of a crime committed by others. The State presented evidence
placing him inside the residence during the relevant timeframe, linking his blood directly to
the murder weapon and multiple areas throughout the crime scene, showing injuries
consistent with participation in the stabbing, and demonstrating that he lied about his
whereabouts shortly after the murder. Viewed in the light most favorable to the State, this
evidence was more than sufficient to permit the jury to conclude, without resorting to
speculation or conjecture, that Cannalte purposely caused Hernandez’s death. Accordingly,
the circuit court properly denied Cannalte’s directed-verdict motion.
7 IV. Conclusion
Cannalte’s sufficiency challenge does not warrant reversal. Viewed in the light most
favorable to the State, the evidence supported both that Cannalte killed Hernandez and that
he did so purposely.
Affirmed.
Special Justice CODY KEES joins.
WEBB, J., not participating.
The Law Offices of J. Paul Coleman, by: Jay Paul Coleman, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.