Swanner v. State

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Swanner v. State

37 S.W.3d 697, 73 Ark. App. 4, 2001 Ark. App. LEXIS 115

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas

DecidedFebruary 28, 2001

DocketCA 00-973

StatusPublished

This text of 37 S.W.3d 697 (Swanner v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Swanner v. State, 37 S.W.3d 697, 73 Ark. App. 4, 2001 Ark. App. LEXIS 115 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001).

Pincite

Opinion

JOSEPHINE LINKER Hart, Judge.

Appellant, Lindsey Jerome J Swanner, was adjudicated a delinquent for committing two counts of second-degree criminal mischief, one a Class D felony and the other a Class B misdemeanor. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-38-204 (Repl. 1997). At the delinquency adjudication hearing, the State submitted testimony from appellant’s accomplices implicating him in the turning off of the main power breaker at the Polk County Health Office, which caused the spoilage of $10,145.85 worth of immunization vaccines, and in the spray painting of an exterior portion of the building.

Citing the accomplice-corroboration rule, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-lll(e)(l) (1987), which provides that “[a] conviction cannot be had in any case of felony upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense,” appellant argued below in his motion for a directed verdict and argues on appeal that he should not have been adjudicated a delinquent because there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of his accomplices. As noted by the State, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court has recently held that the accomplice-corroboration rule does not apply to juvenile proceedings. See Munhall v. State, 337 Ark. 41, 986 S.W.2d 863 (1999). Given this holding, we must conclude that the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion for a directed verdict and affirm appellant’s delinquency adjudication. While the court below concluded that there was adequate corroboration of the testimony of the accomplices and denied appellant’s motion for a directed verdict, we may uphold the court’s ruling if it was correct for any reason. See Warren v. State, 314 Ark. 192, 862 S.W.2d 222 (1993).

Affirmed.

Jennings and Crabtree, JJ., agree.

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

JOSEPHINE LINKER Hart, Judge.

Appellant, Lindsey Jerome J Swanner, was adjudicated a delinquent for committing two counts of second-degree criminal mischief, one a Class D felony and the other a Class B misdemeanor. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-38-204 (Repl. 1997). At the delinquency adjudication hearing, the State submitted testimony from appellant’s accomplices implicating him in the turning off of the main power breaker at the Polk County Health Office, which caused the spoilage of $10,145.85 worth of immunization vaccines, and in the spray painting of an exterior portion of the building.

Citing the accomplice-corroboration rule, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-lll(e)(l) (1987), which provides that “[a] conviction cannot be had in any case of felony upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense,” appellant argued below in his motion for a directed verdict and argues on appeal that he should not have been adjudicated a delinquent because there was insufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of his accomplices. As noted by the State, however, the Arkansas Supreme Court has recently held that the accomplice-corroboration rule does not apply to juvenile proceedings. See Munhall v. State, 337 Ark. 41, 986 S.W.2d 863 (1999). Given this holding, we must conclude that the trial court properly denied appellant’s motion for a directed verdict and affirm appellant’s delinquency adjudication. While the court below concluded that there was adequate corroboration of the testimony of the accomplices and denied appellant’s motion for a directed verdict, we may uphold the court’s ruling if it was correct for any reason. See Warren v. State, 314 Ark. 192, 862 S.W.2d 222 (1993).

Affirmed.

Jennings and Crabtree, JJ., agree.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

37 S.W.3d 697, 73 Ark. App. 4, 2001 Ark. App. LEXIS 115, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/swanner-v-state-arkctapp-2001.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack