Ford v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 576 ( 2014 )

Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 576
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-14-176
Opinion Delivered October 29, 2014
DAMIEN FORD
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE MILLER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2012-438-3]
V.
HONORABLE KIRK JOHNSON,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE AFFIRMED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
Appellant was convicted of one count of first-degree battery, one count of second-
degree battery, and one count of aggravated assault for his role in the beating death of his
live-in girlfriend’s twenty-three-month-old son. He was sentenced to a total of fifty-two
years’ imprisonment. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in denying his motion for
directed verdicts of acquittal. We affirm.
Our standard of review is well-settled:
A motion for directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. When
a defendant makes a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Evidence, whether direct or
circumstantial, is sufficient to support a conviction if it is forceful enough to compel
reasonable minds to reach a conclusion one way or the other. Evidence is substantial
if it is of sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to reach a
conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture. On appeal, this court does not
weigh the evidence presented at trial, as that is a matter for the fact-finder, nor do we
assess the credibility of the witnesses.
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 576
Woods v. State, 363 Ark. 272, 275, 213 S.W.3d 627, 629–30 (2005) (internal citations
omitted).
Viewed in light of this standard, the record shows that the twenty-three-month-old
child, who weighed only fourteen pounds at the time of his death, was found to be severely
beaten as evidenced by over thirty lash marks, bruising, and swelling over his entire body.
It is undisputed that appellant and the child’s mother, Simone Franklin, were solely in charge
of the child during the twenty-four hours prior to his death. Simone Franklin gave detailed
testimony to the effect that she woke to the sound of a belt and discovered appellant beating
the child. She said that she intervened, removed the boy to another room, and went back to
sleep. She awoke again to the sound of appellant beating the child with a belt and yelling
“Get up.” She testified that the child was naked and unable to stand up. She diapered him
and was taking him into the kitchen when appellant grabbed the infant by the ankle and
swung him around. Afterward, when she discovered that the child could neither stand nor
hold his head up, she called 911. She admitted that she had previously told several lies about
the cause of the child’s injuries, explaining that she had done so because appellant had
threatened to kill her if she talked to the police.
Appellant argues that the evidence is insufficient to support his convictions because
Simone Franklin’s testimony that she had previously lied regarding the cause of the child’s
injuries rendered her testimony incredible as a matter of law. We do not agree. The witness’s
credibility was a matter for the jury to determine. Newton v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 190, 382
S.W.3d 711. Where the testimony is conflicting, we do not pass upon the credibility of the
2
Cite as 2014 Ark. App. 576
witnesses and have no right to disregard the testimony of any witness after the jury has given
it full credence, where it cannot be said with assurance that it was inherently improbable,
physically impossible, or so clearly unbelievable that reasonable minds could not differ
thereon. Id. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, there was
substantial evidence to support appellant’s convictions.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN, C.J., and WYNNE, J., agree.
Phillip A. McGough, P.A., by: Phillip A. McGough, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Valerie Glover Fortner, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3