Noah Kristopher Craig v. State of Arkansas

Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 393 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II

No. CR-25-755

NOAH KRISTOPHER CRAIG Opinion Delivered September 9, 2026

APPELLANT

APPEAL FROM THE BENTON

COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

V. [NO. 04CR-17-1543]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE ROBIN F. GREEN, APPELLEE JUDGE

AFFIRMED

STEPHANIE POTTER BARRETT, Judge Noah Craig appeals the Benton County Circuit Court order revoking his suspended imposition of sentence (“SIS”) for committing the new offense of aggravated assault on a family or household member. Craig was subsequently sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Division of Correction. On appeal, he argues there was insufficient evidence that he violated the terms of his SIS by committing a new criminal offense. We affirm.

I. Relevant Background

On October 14, 2019, Craig was convicted as an accomplice to aggravated residential burglary and second-degree battery. He was sentenced to ten years of imprisonment followed by a ten-year SIS. At the time of his sentencing, Craig was informed that the conditions of his SIS included that he not violate any federal, state, or local laws. Craig’s sentence was memorialized in a sentencing order filed on October 17, 2019.

On November 12, 2024, the State filed a petition to revoke Craig’s SIS alleging he violated the conditions of his sentence by committing the offense of aggravated assault on a family or household member on October 1, 2024 On August 7, 2025, a hearing was held on the State’s revocation petition. The State called Officer Kevin Watson in support of its petition to revoke Craig’s suspended sentence. Watson testified he submitted a petition to revoke Craig’s suspended sentence because of an incident on or about October 1, 2024, which resulted in a charge of aggravated assault on a family or household member, a Class D felony. On cross-examination, Watson acknowledged he did not have personal knowledge of the October 1, 2024, altercation between Craig and his girlfriend, Brittany Smart. On redirect examination, Watson testified that Craig was on parole with him at the time the alleged offense occurred. When asked what offense Craig was on parole for, Watson stated he did not have Craig’s original charge information with him but believed the underlying offense was residential burglary.

Next, the State called Deputy Jesse Butler of the Benton County Sheriff’s Office.

Butler testified he was working on the night of October 1, 2024, when he was dispatched to a 911 open-line call, and dispatch informed him that a female caller was extremely upset and crying. When Butler arrived at the residence, the woman quickly walked out of the house toward him. According to Butler, she was very upset and crying and asked that they speak away from the residence because of safety concerns. Butler explained that an open-line call occurs when someone calls 911 but does not respond, often resulting in dispatch calling the person back and determining from that response whether officers should investigate. Butler

3

spoke with the woman, whom the testimony identified as Smart. Butler described Smart as extremely distraught and crying, and he could see red marks around her neck. Smart confirmed she was the person who had called 911.

According to Butler, Smart told him she and her boyfriend, Craig, had been arguing, and the argument became physical. Smart reported that Craig grabbed her by her throat, threw her to the ground, and threatened her. She further reported that after she attempted to call 911, Craig discovered the call and tried to hide her phone. Smart later retrieved the phone and received a return call from dispatch.

After interviewing Smart, Butler placed her in the back of his patrol vehicle for her safety and approached the residence to speak with Craig. Butler knocked several times and called for Craig to come outside but received no response. Butler then noticed a man approaching from the tree line behind him. When Butler asked the man his name, the man identified himself as Craig. Craig walked past Butler and entered the residence.

Butler continued calling for Craig to come outside and waited for another officer to arrive. When Craig did not come out, Butler told his supervisor that Craig was refusing to exit the residence. Butler then moved Smart farther away from the residence and requested medical personnel because of Smart’s statements that she had been choked. Smart also completed a written statement. Butler testified that medical personnel believed there was some injury to Smart’s neck and wanted her to receive further medical care. Smart consented to being transported to the hospital for additional evaluation.

4

Butler subsequently decided to seek an arrest warrant for Craig. Because of staffing concerns and the circumstances of the incident, Butler wanted additional deputies present before returning to the residence. He prepared the warrant and then went to the hospital to gather additional information. The original charges listed in the warrant were aggravated assault on a family or household member and terroristic threatening.

On cross-examination, Butler acknowledged he did not personally witness any interaction between Craig and Smart. Butler did not detect an odor of intoxicants from either Craig or Smart, and he never entered the residence. Regarding Smart’s transportation to the hospital, Butler recalled that medical personnel wanted her to go to the hospital and that Smart consented to transportation by EMS. Butler also recalled Smart stating at the scene that she wanted to go to the hospital.

When asked to further describe what Smart had reported to him, Butler testified that Smart said a verbal argument became physical when Craig grabbed her by her neck and threw her to the ground. According to Butler, Smart reported that Craig held her on the ground by her neck while she pleaded for him to stop. Smart also reported that Craig made threatening statements, including that she was lucky he did not beat her or kill her. Butler further recalled Smart reporting that Craig punched her while she was on the floor.

Butler did not recall seeing blood or cuts on Smart but did recall seeing her rubbing her neck. Butler also testified that during his brief interaction with Craig, Craig denied touching Smart. According to Butler, the only statement Craig made as he walked past Butler was, in substance, that he had not touched her.

5

Finally, the State called Brittany Smart. Smart testified she had previously been in a relationship with Craig for approximately seven months and that they had lived together. Smart testified they were no longer together, and the October 1, 2024 incident ended their relationship. Smart testified that on October 1, she returned home after working a ten-to- twelve-hour shift. Craig asked to see her phone, and Smart allowed him to do so. According to Smart, Craig began accusing her of talking to people at work and on her phone. Smart denied doing anything wrong.

Smart testified she called 911 that evening because she needed help after Craig put his hands on her. Smart explained that Craig had taken her phone at some point, but she later retrieved it from the bed and held it against her chest while calling 911. Smart testified Craig held her by her throat and told her he was going to kill her. Smart stated she responded by telling Craig he needed to contact her family.

Smart testified Craig also threatened to punch her, threatened to break her jaw, and attempted to sic his dog on her. Smart explained she used an emergency feature on her phone that allowed her to call 911 by pressing a button five times. Because Craig continued trying to take the phone away, Smart held the phone against her chest. She could not hear the 911 operator, but the operator could hear her. Smart later spoke with 911 personnel but could not remember what she said.

Smart testified Craig placed his hands around her neck multiple times. The first time, she was able to breathe; the second time, she could not. Smart testified that she eventually wedged her feet between her and Craig and kicked him, causing him to go against the wall

6

and fall to the floor. Smart further testified that, at the beginning of the altercation, she attempted to stay away from Craig, but Craig grabbed her by her neck and threw her to the ground.

Smart testified that Craig also struck her body and continued attempting to sic his dog on her. She estimated that, during the second choking incident, Craig’s hands were around her neck for approximately two minutes before she was able to wedge her feet between them. Smart again testified that Craig told her he was going to kill her.

Smith testified that when law enforcement arrived, Craig told her to answer the door and was no longer present when she did so. Smart immediately went outside because she was concerned for her safety. She asked the responding officer if they could move away from the door, and they went toward the officer’s vehicle. When the officer prepared to confront Craig, Smart was asked to sit in the patrol vehicle so the officer would know she was safe.

Smart testified that she was in both emotional and physical pain following the incident. Her throat hurt, and she also complained of pain in her right wrist. Smart stated that she was supposed to return to a doctor concerning her wrist but did not do so because she lacked transportation.

Following Smart’s testimony, the circuit court found that the October 1, 2024, incident violated Craig’s SIS, and it sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Division of Correction. The sentencing order was filed on August 19, 2025.

7

II. Sufficiency of the Evidence An SIS may be revoked when the circuit court finds by a preponderance of the evidence that the defendant has inexcusably violated a condition of the SIS. Joseph v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 276, 577 S.W.3d 55. When multiple violations are alleged, a circuit court’s revocation will be affirmed if the evidence is sufficient to establish that the appellant violated any one condition of the SIS. Daniels v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 473, 588 S.W.3d 116. A circuit court’s revocation of an SIS will be affirmed on appeal unless the decision is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id. This court defers to the circuit court’s determinations regarding witness credibility and the weight to be accorded testimony. Id.

Here, the State presented evidence that the terms of Craig’s SIS included not committing any new criminal offenses. The State then presented evidence that Craig committed aggravated assault on a family or household member, his girlfriend, Smart. Smart testified that Craig grabbed her by her neck during an argument, threw her to the ground, and continued choking her. Smart confirmed she was unable to breathe during the attack. This meets the criteria for aggravated assault on a family or household member under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-26-306(a)(3) (Repl. 2024), which states:

A person commits aggravated assault on a family or household member if, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, the person purposely . . . impedes or prevents the respiration of a family or household member or the circulation of a family or household member by applying pressure on the chest, throat, or neck or by blocking the nose or mouth of the family or household member.

8

Craig now argues he did not act under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life when choking Smart because she was able to defend herself and never lost consciousness. This argument is not persuasive, especially since Craig does not dispute the act itself. The circuit court’s decision was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. We affirm.

Affirmed.

GLADWIN and TUCKER, JJ., agree.

Lassiter & Cassinelli, by: Michael Kiel Kaiser, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: James Hill, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.