Sign Up for Vincent AI
Stuart v. State
Potts Law Office, by: Gary W. Potts, Monticello, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
Marvin Stuart was convicted by a Boone County Circuit Court jury for aggravated assault, resisting arrest, fleeing, and public intoxication. He was sentenced to three years’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Stuart appeals his aggravated-assault conviction, arguing that the evidence was insufficient to support the jury’s finding that his conduct rose to the level of creating a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury. We affirm.
On the evening of March 15, 2018, Officer Joshua Applegate, a patrol officer with the Harrison Police Department, responded to a 911 hang-up call that originated from an apartment complex. Upon arriving at the complex, Officer Applegate observed a male and female lying on their backs in the grass outside. As Officer Applegate approached, the male, later identified as Stuart, stood up and started running. Officer Applegate asked him to stop, but Stuart turned around, yelled a profanity, and continued to run. Officer Applegate notified dispatch for backup and a foot chase ensued.
At trial, Officer Applegate’s testimony established the following. Once Officer Applegate caught up with Stuart, he took him to the ground and attempted to arrest him for fleeing. As soon as they contacted the ground, Stuart immediately started fighting. Officer Applegate managed to get on top of Stuart and pin down one arm while Stuart continued to punch and "knee" Officer Applegate. During the struggle, in addition to ripping Officer Applegate’s shirt, Stuart grabbed at Officer Applegate’s duty belt, and Officer Applegate recalled his holster "getting shook real hard." Officer Applegate immediately dropped his hand down to hold his gun in place. He testified, "If he was able to get my weapon from me, he would kill me." Eventually, Officer Applegate was able to get control of Stuart, who continued to struggle, until backup arrived.
Sergeant Rodney Smith testified that he responded to Officer Applegate’s page to dispatch that he was on a foot pursuit. Sergeant Smith arrived during the altercation and assisted Officer Applegate with the arrest. He described Officer Applegate as "out of breath," "sweating," and "disheveled."
After the State rested, Stuart moved for directed verdict, arguing that his conduct did not constitute aggravated assault because the State failed to show that Stuart created a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury. The circuit court denied the motion. The defense then rested without calling any witnesses. Stuart renewed his motion for directed verdict, which the circuit court again denied. After deliberations, the jury returned a guilty verdict on the charges of aggravated assault, resisting arrest, fleeing, and public intoxication. The jury sentenced Stuart to serve three years’ incarceration. Stuart timely appeals the aggravated-assault conviction, arguing that the circuit court erred by denying his directed-verdict motions.
Motions for directed verdict are treated as challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Swaim v. State , 78 Ark. App. 176, 79 S.W.3d 853 (2002). When reviewing the denial of a directed verdict, the appellate court will look at the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, considering only the evidence that supports the judgment or verdict and will affirm if there is substantial evidence to support a verdict. Id. 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. Jenkins v. State , 2020 Ark. App. 45, 592 S.W.3d 675. Evidence is sufficient to support a verdict if it is forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other. Swaim , 78 Ark. App. 176, 79 S.W.3d 853.
On appeal, Stuart argues the jury had to speculate to reach the conclusion that his conduct rose to the level of creating a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to Officer Applegate. Stuart notes that Officer Applegate reported no injuries or marks and that Stuart never wielded any form of a weapon against him and never verbally threatened him.
A person commits aggravated assault if, under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, he or she purposely engages in conduct that creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to another person. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-204(a)(1) (Supp. 2019). A person acts purposely when it is his conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature or to cause such a result. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202(1) (Repl. 2013). Intent "may be inferred from the facts and circumstances shown in evidence." Anderson v. State , 62 Ark. App. 1, 967 S.W.2d 569 (1998). The aggravated-assault statute does not require that a weapon actually be used or that he victim actually fear for his safety but requires a "substantial danger of death or injury to another person." Schwede v. State , 49 Ark. App. 87, 89, 896 S.W.2d 454, 455 (1995) (citing Wooten v. State , 32 Ark. App. 198, 201, 799 S.W.2d 560, 562 (1990) ).
Here, the...
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialExperience vLex's unparalleled legal AI
Access millions of documents and let Vincent AI power your research, drafting, and document analysis — all in one platform.
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Try vLex and Vincent AI for free
Start a free trialStart Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting
Start Your 3-day Free Trial of vLex and Vincent AI, Your Precision-Engineered Legal Assistant
-
Access comprehensive legal content with no limitations across vLex's unparalleled global legal database
-
Build stronger arguments with verified citations and CERT citator that tracks case history and precedential strength
-
Transform your legal research from hours to minutes with Vincent AI's intelligent search and analysis capabilities
-
Elevate your practice by focusing your expertise where it matters most while Vincent handles the heavy lifting