Williams v. State

2021 Ark. App. 89

618 S.W.3d 200

Geralrod WILLIAMS, Appellant

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee

No. CR-20-426

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, DIVISION III.

Opinion Delivered February 24, 2021

Rehearing Denied April 7, 2021

James Law Firm, Little Rock, by: William O. "Will" James III and William O. "Bill" James, Jr., for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Michael L. Yarbrough, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge

Geralrod Williams appeals his conviction by a Hot Spring County Circuit Court jury of one count of forgery in the first degree and one count of robbery. On appeal, he challenges the denial of his motion for a mistrial, the admission of certain testimony and evidence, and the sufficiency of the evidence presented against him. We affirm.

This case is based on allegations that on March 23, 2019, Williams used counterfeit hundred-dollar bills to purchase $2,600 worth of electronics equipment at a Walmart store in Malvern, which he immediately returned to a different Walmart store in Little Rock in exchange for cash. Williams was tried in the Hot Spring County Circuit Court on March 6, 2020. During jury selection, a potential juror, Richard Gilbert, stated that he was familiar with Williams because he, Gilbert, had previously worked at the Malvern Police Department and at the Arkansas Department of Correction. The court questioned Gilbert and determined that he could be unbiased. Williams's attorney moved for a mistrial claiming that the mention of Williams in conjunction with the Malvern police and the Arkansas Department of Correction had prejudiced the entire jury pool against his client. The court denied that motion, and the trial began.

The State presented testimony from several Walmart employees, including asset protection manager Jennifer Wilson, who testified that she investigated a possible loss of profit on March 23, 2019, in relation to twenty-six counterfeit hundred-dollar bills that the store had received. She stated that surveillance video of the transaction revealed that Williams had purchased approximately $2,600 in electronics from the Malvern Walmart on March 22. She described for the jury that the video showed Williams giving the money to a Walmart employee. She also testified that she was able to access the receipt for the transaction and learned that all the items that Williams purchased were returned to a Walmart in Little Rock two hours later. Additionally, Wilson testified that the counterfeit bills did not feel the same to the touch as authentic bills and that they bore a disclaimer that they were "play money." The bills were admitted into evidence.

Wilson testified that she contacted the Little Rock store and received a still image, referred to as a "screen shot," from its computer system showing Williams as the person who had returned the items. Williams objected to Wilson's testimony regarding the screenshot as hearsay, and the court overruled that objection. Wilson also testified that she obtained a return receipt listing the exact serial numbers of the goods purchased in Malvern, which was signed by Williams. The return receipts were admitted into evidence with no objection.

At the end of the State's case, Williams moved for directed verdict on each charge. The trial court denied the motions. Williams presented no evidence or testimony in his defense. He renewed his motions for directed verdict, which were again denied. The jury deliberated and found Williams guilty on both counts and sentenced him to forty years’ imprisonment on the forgery charge and fifteen years’ imprisonment on the theft charge, to run consecutively.

Williams filed this timely appeal in which he argues (1) there was insufficient evidence to uphold his convictions; (2) the trial court abused its discretion by denying his motion for a mistrial; (3) the trial court abused its discretion by allowing testimony about the screenshots; and (4) the trial court abused its discretion by admitting the signed return receipt into evidence.

Motions for direct verdict are challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Baker v. State , 2019 Ark. App. 515, at 1, 588 S.W.3d 844, 846. When reviewing sufficiency challenges, this court "view[s] the evidence in the light most favorable to the verdict, and only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered." Id. at 1–2, 588 S.W.3d at 846. Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonably certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id.

Williams first challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting both convictions. His argument has no merit. Forgery in the first degree is a Class B felony pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-37-201 (Repl. 2013). "A person forges a written instrument if, with purpose to defraud, the person makes, completes, alters, counterfeits, possesses, or utters any written instrument that purports to be or is calculated to become or to represent if completed the act of a person who did not authorize that act." Turner v. State , 2012 Ark. App. 150, at 8, 391 S.W.3d 358, 364 (citing Ark. Code Ann. § 5-37-201).

Williams is bound by the nature and scope of the motion for directed verdict he made below. In this case, he argued that the State had failed to prove that he acted with intent to defraud. On appeal, he also argues that there was insufficient evidence identifying him as the person who passed the counterfeit bills, but the only argument we will address is the one he raised below. Williams's claim that he did not know the bills were fake is not persuasive. There was ample evidence that Williams knew he was passing counterfeit money and acted with intent to defraud Walmart. Wilson testified that the bills felt fake and bore markings stating that they were not legal tender and were only "play money." Moreover, the jury could infer Williams's knowledge from the sequence of events: he went into the Malvern store with twenty-six fake hundred-dollar bills,...