Armstrong v. State

2020 Ark. 309

607 S.W.3d 491

Matthew ARMSTRONG, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-19-745

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered: October 8, 2020

Cross, Gunter, Witherspoon & Galchus, P.C., by: Misty Wilson Borkowski, Little Rock, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

COURTNEY RAE HUDSON, Associate Justice

Appellant Matthew Armstrong appeals his convictions in the Searcy County Circuit Court for first-degree murder, first-degree escape, and employing a firearm to commit the murder. He received respective sentences of life, fifty years', and fifteen years' imprisonment, with all sentences to be served consecutively. For reversal, Armstrong argues that (1) he was denied assistance of counsel when the circuit court permitted him to be represented by an attorney with a suspended law license; (2) the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on the first-degree-murder charge; (3) the circuit court erred by not instructing the jury on the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and manslaughter; and (4) the circuit court erred in refusing to allow into evidence certain text messages that were purportedly sent to him by the victim. We affirm.

On April 25, 2018, Armstrong was charged with the first-degree murder of Jessica Thornton and with using a firearm during the commission of the offense. He was subsequently charged with first-degree escape after escaping from the custody of the Searcy County Detention Center on July 14, 2018.

The jury trial was held on April 25–26, 2019. According to the evidence presented at trial, police responded to a call from Armstrong about a shooting at approximately 10:00 a.m. on February 27, 2018. When Sheriff Joey Pruitt arrived at the location, Armstrong flagged him down and attempted to give directions to where the shooting had occurred. Pruitt instructed Armstrong to get in the car and observed that he had a lot of blood on his pants and on his hands. After driving through a gate to a nearby farm, Pruitt found Thornton's body behind a Nissan Rogue that was still running, with the hatchback and driver's-side door open. The victim was found facedown with a .45-caliber handgun under her right hand, a black rifle under her legs, and a broken, unlit cigarette in her left hand. The pistol's magazine was also found just above the victim's head. Thornton had a gunshot wound on the back, left side of her head and a large blunt-force-trauma injury to the top of her head. Inside the car, police found a chainsaw, a cell phone, a rifle case, a brown rifle, a spent shell casing underneath the driver's seat, and a live round underneath items on the passenger seat.

In his statement to police, Armstrong claimed that he was working on a nearby barn that was under construction when he heard a gunshot and Thornton yelling, demanding her chainsaw back. He stated that he placed the chainsaw in the rear of the vehicle and walked back toward the barn. Armstrong indicated that Thornton had a pistol in her hand and was waving it around and cursing at him. He then claimed that she went to the rear of her vehicle, retrieved the rifle, and was holding it in one hand while she continued to wave the pistol around with her other hand. Armstrong stated that he was standing approximately eight feet away from Thornton when he looked down for a moment and heard a gunshot. He indicated that he ran to her and grabbed her head. Armstrong did not recall touching the rifle but stated that he may have moved the pistol out of her hand. He did not know why the magazine was ejected from the gun, speculating that he may have hit the release when he moved it away from Thornton. According to Armstrong, he had been in a romantic relationship with Thornton, although they had recently broken up. He stated that they remained on friendly terms, however, and that he had borrowed her chainsaw the day before and had been driving her vehicle.

Special Agent David Small with the Arkansas State Police testified that he was the lead investigator in the case and that the physical evidence found at the scene did not support Armstrong's claim that Thornton had committed suicide. For example, the pistol underneath the victim's right hand was covered in blood, with the exception of one small area near the barrel where there was a void. Small stated that it appeared something had been pressed on that spot. In addition, blood was found on top of the magazine that had been ejected from the pistol. According to Small, this evidence was not consistent with it falling out after the victim was shot. Further, there was blood on one of the live rounds inside the magazine. Small also pointed out that there was dirt on and underneath the victim's fingernails on her right hand even though it was on top of the pistol.

Dr. Jennifer Forsyth, the medical examiner who performed the autopsy on Thornton, testified that the victim had two prominent injuries—the gunshot wound and the laceration on her head. Forsyth stated that the gunshot wound was on the back, left side of Thornton's head and had an upward trajectory. She indicated that the gun had to have been at least twelve to eighteen inches away when it was fired because there was no evidence of powder burn on the wound. Forsyth further testified that the laceration, which was so deep that it exposed the skull, was caused by a blow from a blunt object, not by a fall. She explained that the injury from a terminal fall would be much smaller and would not extend to the bone. Accordingly, Forsyth classified the death as a homicide rather than a suicide.

Other evidence presented by the State showed that Armstrong's jeans tested positive for gunshot residue on both legs.

Thornton's blood was also found on his jeans and on his shirt. The two shell casings recovered from the scene were determined to have come from the pistol.

With regard to Thornton's first-degree-escape charge, Blake Kelly, who was employed with the Searcy County Sheriff's Office, testified that he was working at the jail on July 14, 2018. As he was opening the gate to move inmates from one area to another, Kelly stated that Armstrong asked for a book. Kelly told him to wait a minute, and as soon as Kelly opened the gate, another inmate threw hot coffee on him, hit him in the chest, and restrained him, dislocating his shoulder in the process. Meanwhile, Armstrong and a second inmate escaped and were picked up at a location arranged by Armstrong and his girlfriend. The escapees were found several days later hiding in a church.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury convicted Armstrong of all charges. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment for the first-degree-murder conviction and fifty years' imprisonment for the first-degree-escape conviction. His sentence was enhanced by fifteen years for his use of a firearm during the murder. The circuit court ordered all sentences to be served consecutively. The sentencing order was entered on April 26, 2019, and Armstrong filed a timely notice of appeal.

Although it is presented as his second point on appeal, we address Armstrong's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence first due to double-jeopardy considerations. Conte v. State , 2015 Ark. 220, 463 S.W.3d 686. Armstrong argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on the charge of first-degree murder.¹ Specifically, he contends that the State failed to prove that he committed the murder with the requisite purposeful intent.

We treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. McCray v. State , 2020 Ark. 172, 598 S.W.3d 509. In reviewing a sufficiency challenge, we assess the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. We will affirm a judgment of conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Mabry v. State , 2020 Ark. 72, 594 S.W.3d 39. Substantial evidence is evidence that 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. Id. 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. Howard v. State , 2016 Ark. 434, 506 S.W.3d 843. Whether the evidence excludes every other hypothesis is left to the jury to decide. Id. Further, the credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury, not the court; 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. Id.

Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-10-102(a)(2) (Supp. 2019), a person commits murder in the first degree if, "[w]ith a purpose of causing the death of another person, the person causes the death of another person[.]" 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.

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202(1) (Repl. 2013). We have held that the purpose to commit a crime can be formed in an instant. Drennan v. State , 2018 Ark. 328, 559 S.W.3d 262. Intent is seldom capable of proof by direct evidence and must usually be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the killing. McCray, supra. 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. Halliburton v. State , 2020 Ark. 101, 594 S.W.3d 856.

Contrary to Armstrong's contention, the State presented substantial evidence to support the jury's conclusion that he acted with purposeful intent in killing Thornton. First, investigators testified that the physical evidence did not support Armstrong's claim...