Jason Rouse v. State of Arkansas

2023 Ark. App. 558

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: December 6, 2023
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 558 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-22-656

Opinion Delivered December 6, 2023 JASON ROUSE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 35CR-19-261]

HONORABLE ALEX GUYNN, STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED

N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge

Following a jury trial in the Jefferson County Circuit Court, Jason Rouse was

convicted of first-degree murder, and a firearm sentencing enhancement was imposed. He

was sentenced to twenty-eight years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Rouse argues that he was

justified in using deadly physical force against Odell Lankford. We agree with the State that

Rouse’s arguments are not preserved for appeal; accordingly, we affirm.

The evidence at trial established that on March 23, 2019, Rouse and his fiancée,

Nakeishia Dalton, argued with Dalton’s brother, Lankford, before Rouse fatally shot him.

The altercation was recorded by home security cameras inside and outside the home where

Lankford lived, although the videos have no sound. Dalton’s teenage brother testified that

when Rouse and Dalton arrived at the home, they were looking for Lankford, they said they “had something for” Lankford, and they displayed a pistol. Video from inside the home

shows Dalton holding a handgun and Lankford holding a rifle pointed at the floor. After

the altercation moves outside, both Dalton and Rouse point handguns at Lankford, who is

shirtless and appears to be unarmed. The argument continues in the street as Dalton and

Rouse walk toward their car down the street. Rouse walks to the car a couple of times before

he turns and walks toward Lankford while appearing to raise and fire his gun from just a few

feet away as Lankford takes steps backward. Lankford then charges toward Rouse and they

fall to the ground. The police arrive approximately twenty seconds after the first shot is fired.

In his police interview, Rouse claimed that Lankford may have put a smaller gun in

his pants after putting away the rifle and that Lankford attempted to take Dalton’s gun while

she stood at the car. He claimed that Lankford charged him while armed, that they “wrestled

and tussled” with Lankford on top of him, and that he (Rouse) picked up a gun off the

ground and shot Lankford out of fear for his life. The police found the guns brandished by

Rouse and Dalton in their car, but no gun was found on or around Lankford, who had

sustained four gunshot wounds.

On appeal, Rouse argues that he was justified in shooting Lankford because he

reasonably believed that Lankford was about to use unlawful deadly force. Rouse claims that

Lankford had made threats, had displayed a rifle, and had continued to aggressively pursue

him despite his attempts to retreat to the street and to his car.

On appellate review, this court must determine whether there was substantial

evidence to support a finding of justification. Gentry v. State, 2021 Ark. 26. Justification is

2 considered an element of the offense, and once raised, it must be disproved by the

prosecution beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. A person is justified in using deadly physical

force upon another person if the person reasonably believes that the other person is

committing or about to commit a felony involving force or violence or is using or about to

use unlawful deadly physical force. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-607(a) (Supp. 2019). A person

may not use deadly physical force in self-defense if the person knows that he or she can avoid

the necessity of using deadly physical force by retreating. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-607(b)(1)(A).

However, a person is not required to retreat if the person is unable to retreat with complete

safety. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-607(b)(1)(B)(i).

The State argues that Rouse’s argument is not preserved for appeal because in his

directed-verdict motion at trial, he failed to mention justification or any of its elements. A

motion for directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1.

We will not address the merits of an appellant’s sufficiency argument where the directed-

verdict motion is not specific. Kinsey v. State, 2016 Ark. 393, 503 S.W.3d 772.

Rouse argued in his directed-verdict motion in relevant part as follows:

My client is charged with murder in the first degree. To sustain the charge, the State must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that, with the purpose of causing the death of Odell Lankford, he caused the death of Odell Lankford. I don’t think there’s really any dispute at all that my client shot Mr. Lankford. He gave a statement to police indicating that he did, and he also indicated that he was in fear of his life at the time. At no point in that statement did he say anything that, I think, would lead one to believe that he went in there shooting at Odell for the purpose of killing him; certainly for the purpose of neutralizing a threat that he may oppose but not for the purpose of killing him. And the bullets -- the testimony regarding the bullets. Most of the gunshots hit Mr. Lankford in the legs, which is not indicative of an intent to kill, as would be a shot to the heart or a shot to the head. . . .

3 After the defense rested, Rouse renewed his motion “on the same grounds.”

In Kinsey, supra, the defendant argued in his directed-verdict motions that “with

regard to self-defense, the State has not disproven that” and “the State has failed to negate

self-defense.” The supreme court held that Kinsey failed to identify the specific elements he

alleged the State had failed to prove—for example, whether the State failed to show that

Kinsey lacked a reasonable belief that the victims were about to use deadly force; whether

the State failed to demonstrate that Kinsey could have retreated safely; or whether the State

failed to demonstrate that the victims were not committing, or were not about to commit, a

felony involving force or violence. See also Johnson v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 207, at 6 (holding

that a directed-verdict motion mentioning the words “justified” and “defending herself”

failed to preserve a justification argument for appeal); Woods v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 256, at

5, 548 S.W.3d 832, 835 (holding that an argument that the defendant was “defending her

sons” did not preserve justification argument).

While Rouse’s motion did mention that he was “in fear of his life” and had the

“purpose of neutralizing a threat,” he did not identify any specific element of justification

that the State had failed to disprove. Pursuant to our precedent as set forth above, Rouse’s

justification argument is not preserved for appeal. Rouse’s arguments on appeal regarding

imperfect self-defense were likewise not preserved, and he has abandoned his argument that

the State otherwise failed to prove that he acted with the purpose of killing Lankford.

4 Even if Rouse’s arguments were preserved, viewing the evidence in the light most

favorable to the State, we conclude that the State met its burden of negating Rouse’s

justification defense. The jury was able to view video of the argument leading up to the

shooting and the shooting itself. This allowed the jury to observe several discrepancies in

the account Rouse gave to police, including his claim that Lankford tried to take Dalton’s

gun, that Lankford was armed when he was shot, and that Lankford charged at Rouse

immediately before being shot. The jury is free to believe the State’s account of the facts

rather than the defendant’s. Gentry, supra. Accordingly, we affirm the conviction.

Affirmed.

HARRISON, C.J., and BARRETT, J., agree.

Morris Law Firm, by: Jimmy C. Morris, Jr., for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Joseph Karl Luebke, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.