Richardson v. State

687 S.W.3d 576

2024 Ark. 81

Maurice RICHARDSON, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-23-745

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Opinion Delivered: May 9, 2024

APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 66FCR-22-913], HONORABLE STEPHEN TABOR, JUDGE

Dusti Standridge, Attorney at Law, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Brooke Jackson Gasaway, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

BARBARA W. WEBB, Justice

₁Appellant Maurice Richardson was convicted of second-degree murder, rape, and abuse of a corpse and was sentenced as a habitual offender to sixty years’ imprisonment, life imprisonment, and thirty years’ imprisonment, respectively. On ap- peal, he argues insufficient evidence supports his convictions for murder and rape. We affirm.

I. Background

On August 10, 2022, the body of Tonia Tran was found wrapped in a bedspread on the side of the road in Altus. Tran had been suffocated to death. There were also indicia that she had been severely beaten and had sustained vaginal injuries.

A subsequent police investigation revealed that Richardson had been in a relationship with Tran. A search warrant was executed on the duplex Richardson shared with Tran. In the master bedroom, police found a broken dresser and blood splatter on the floor. There was also a new mattress and bedspread. And officers found pillow shams that matched the ₂bedspread wrapped around Tran’s body. Forensic testing showed that it was Tran’s blood that was on the floor in the bedroom. Tran's car was parked outside the duplex. Her blood was found in the trunk.

Police then executed a search warrant on a house that Richardson had been renovating. Inside the house, officers found Tran’s personal effects, along with a bloody mattress, which tested positive for Tran's blood. Richardson’s nephew had helped him move the mattress into the house in the days after Tran’s body was discovered. Additionally, a cigarette butt containing Richardson's DNA was found near Tran’s body.

During an interview with police, Richardson initially denied his relationship with Tran. He eventually admitted they had recently had sex and lived together but denied involvement in the murder. Richardson was unable to explain why Tran was found wrapped in a bedspread from his duplex.

Richardson was charged with first-degree murder, rape, and abuse of a corpse. At trial, Richardson moved for a directed verdict on all charges. For first-degree murder, he argued that there was insufficient evidence that he caused Tran’s death. As to rape, Richardson asserted that the State had failed to present evidence that Tran was alive during the deviate sexual activity or that it was done for the purposes of sexual gratification. And on the abuse-of-a-corpse charge, Richardson argued there had been no evidence presented that he "knowingly physically mistreat[ed] or conceal[ed] a corpse in a manner offensive to a person of reasonable sensitivity." The circuit court denied the motions.

The jury convicted Richardson of second-degree murder, rape, and abuse of a corpse. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to sixty years' imprisonment, life ₃imprisonment, and thirty years’ imprisonment, respectively. Richardson now argues on appeal that insufficient evidence supports his murder and rape convictions.

II. Discussion

[1–6] When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict and consider only evidence that supports the verdict. Wallace v. State, 2023 Ark. 7, 659 S.W.3d 267. We will affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Collins v. State, 2021 Ark. 35, 617 S.W.3d 701. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id. We do not weigh the evidence presented at trial or assess the credibility of the witnesses because those are matters for the fact-finder. Halliburton v. State, 2020 Ark. 101, 594 S.W.3d 856. 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. 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. Id.

A. Second-Degree Murder

Richardson first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his second-degree murder-conviction. Specifically, he argues that the State failed to present evidence directly linking him to the crime, such as eyewitness testimony, DNA evidence, a murder weapon, or a confession. The State, on the other hand, asserts that this argument is ₄unpreserved because Richardson’s directed-verdict motions did not include the lesser-included offense of second-degree murder.

[7] To preserve challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting convictions for lesser-included offenses, defendants are required to address the lesser-included offenses either by name or by apprising the circuit court of the elements of the lesser-included offenses questioned by their motions for directed verdict. E.g., Haynes v. State, 346 Ark. 388, 391, 58 S.W.3d 336, 339 (2001). In other words, a defendant must make a specific motion for a directed verdict that informs the circuit court of the exact element of the crime that the State failed to prove. Grady v. State, 350 Ark. 160, 166, 85 S.W.3d 531, 533 (2002); Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1. The reason for this requirement is that when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the circuit court can either grant the motion or, if justice requires, allow the State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof. Pearcy v. State, 2010 Ark. 454, at 5, 375 S.W.3d 622, 625.

Richardson made the following directed-verdict motion:

Your Honor, however, I do move for a directed verdict as to the charge of murder in the first degree. I do not—I would certainly agree that a murder occurred, that the—and there’s not sufficient evidence regarding the charge of murder in the element that this defendant caused the death of Tonia Tran, that if it were to go forward at this point, that it would be a matter of speculation for the jury and that there’s not enough evidence to carry it forward past a directed verdict.

Richardson again moved for a directed verdict at the close of his own case, asserting that

although there’s been evidence of a murder and evidence even of a cigarette butt with DNA near the body, that there’s not been reasonable explanations as to how that got there, and that this—there’s really no other evidence to go forward with

...