Scott v. State

Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 614
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-15-253
DESHAUN SCOTT Opinion Delivered October 28, 2015
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
FIFTH DIVISION
[NO. CR-2012-3973]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE WENDELL GRIFFEN,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
CLIFF HOOFMAN, Judge
Appellant Deshaun Scott appeals from his conviction for second-degree murder, for
which he was sentenced to forty-five years’ imprisonment. He was also found guilty of using
a firearm during the commission of the offense and received a sentence enhancement of fifteen
years, to be served consecutively. On appeal, Scott argues that the circuit court erred in
permitting the State to elicit testimony about a certain statement he had made prior to the
murder. We affirm.
On December 31, 2012, Scott was charged with first-degree murder in connection
with the November 10, 2012 death of his wife, Lacrisa Renee Foot. He was also charged
with using a firearm during the commission of the offense. The jury trial was held on July
15–18, 2014.
At trial, Little Rock Police Officer Alicia Smith testified that she was off duty and that
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 614
she was working security at Elevations Nightclub in the early morning hours of November
10, 2012. Scott and Foot had been asked to leave the club after an altercation in which Scott
threw a drink on Foot. As Smith approached them to escort them out of the club, she stated
that Scott was visibly upset and that she overheard him say, “Fuck the police and her.” After
Scott and Foot got into their vehicle and started to drive away, Smith witnessed Foot open
the passenger door and roll out of the car while it was still moving. She then saw Foot get
up, walk around to the driver’s side of the vehicle, and try to punch Scott. Smith heard Foot
exclaim, “I can’t believe you punched me in the face.” Officer Hubert Bryant, who was also
off duty and working security at the club that night, testified that he also witnessed the
argument in the parking lot. He stated that Scott was insisting on Foot getting back into the
car with him, but he informed Scott that he could not force her to go with him and told him
to leave the premises. The last time Bryant saw Foot, she was talking on her cell phone and
walking toward the parking lot at the bottom of the hill. He testified that he assumed she was
going to meet back up with Scott based on what he overheard from her phone conversation.
Approximately one hour later, Foot’s body was found lying face down in the street at
the intersection of 39th Street and Katherine Street. She had a single gunshot wound to her
head near her left ear, as well as blunt force trauma to the back of her skull. Although Scott
initially denied knowing anything about Foot’s death, he later admitted to police that he had
returned to the nightclub to get Foot, that they were then arguing in the car, that he grabbed
her gun in the passenger side console in order to keep it from her, and that she slapped the
gun, causing it to accidentally shoot her in the head. Once he realized that Foot had been
2
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 614
shot, Scott stated that he panicked, stopped the car, and pushed her out into the street. He
then threw the gun in the Arkansas River.
Blood splatter was found on the exterior of the passenger side of the vehicle, as well
as a piece of what appeared to be brain matter or body tissue. There was also a small amount
of blood splatter found on the inside of the front passenger window and the door frame. The
medical examiner, Dr. Frank Peretti, testified that he would have expected to see more blood
on the interior of the car if Foot was shot while inside it. He further stated that Foot suffered
two distinct injuries, the gunshot and the blunt force trauma to her head, and he indicated
that the body had to have been moved because her skull fracture could not have been caused
by her falling face down onto the pavement. Peretti also indicated that there was no evidence
that Foot was shot from close range.
At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Scott guilty of second-degree murder and
of using a firearm during the commission of the offense. He was sentenced to forty-five years’
imprisonment, plus a fifteen-year firearm enhancement, for a total of sixty years in the
Arkansas Department of Correction. The judgment and commitment order was entered on
September 16, 2014, and Scott filed a timely notice of appeal.
For his sole argument on appeal, Scott argues that the circuit court erred in permitting
the State to elicit testimony from Officer Alicia Smith that he had said, “Fuck the police.”
He contends that this statement was both irrelevant and more prejudicial than probative, and
he requests that this court reverse and remand the case for a new trial.
Trial courts have wide discretion in their evidentiary rulings, and there must be an
3
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 614
abuse of discretion, as well as a showing of prejudice, to justify reversal of that decision.
McCoy v. State, 354 Ark. 322, 123 S.W.3d 901 (2003). According to Arkansas Rule of
Evidence 401 (2014), relevant evidence means “evidence having any tendency to make the
existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable
or less probable than it would be without the evidence.” All relevant evidence is admissible,
except as otherwise provided by the rules. Ark. R. Evid. 402 (2014). Under Arkansas Rule
of Evidence 403 (2014), evidence that is otherwise admissible may be excluded “if its
probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice, confusion of the
issues, or misleading the jury, or by considerations of undue delay, waste of time, or needless
presentation of cumulative evidence.”
In his argument on appeal, Scott focuses only on the portion of his statement that said,
“Fuck the police.” However, the complete statement admitted through Smith’s testimony
was actually, “Fuck the police and her.” The circuit court overruled Scott’s objection to this
testimony, finding that it was admissible to show the course of conduct between Scott and
Foot at the relevant point in time. The court cautioned the State, however, against going
“any further down that road.”
As Scott admits, the primary issue to be decided by the jury at trial was his mental state
at the time he shot Foot. We have held that any evidence that is relevant to explain the act,
show a motive, or illustrate the accused’s state of mind may be independently relevant and
admissible. Conte v. State, 2015 Ark. 220, 463 S.W.3d 686; Berks v. State, 2013 Ark. App.
203, 427 S.W.3d 98. Under the circumstances in this case, Smith’s testimony that Scott was
4
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 614
visibly upset after being kicked out of the club following an altercation with Foot and that she
then overheard him say, “Fuck the police and her,” was relevant to show his state of mind
shortly before the shooting.
Scott also contends that the evidence was more prejudicial than probative because the
probative value of his statement “Fuck the police” was “nil,” while the testimony had “the
potential to inflame the jury’s passions, elicit anger, and create a jury hostile to Scott, who not
only had his life being decided by the jury but also testified.” Again, Scott erroneously
focuses on only a portion of the entire statement that was admitted. The statement as a whole
was probative of Scott’s state of mind during the time period shortly before the shooting, and
the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by finding that the statement was not more
prejudicial than probative based on the other evidence presented in this case. In addition to
the evidence that Scott threw a drink on Foot at the nightclub and then allegedly hit her in
the face when she initially got into his car after they were forced to leave the club, the jury
also heard Scott’s testimony at trial that he had eight prior felony convictions, including
terroristic threatening and aggravated assault. He further testified that he was on probation
at the time of the offense in this case. Given this evidence, Scott was not unfairly prejudiced
by Smith’s testimony as to his statement while leaving the club, and the circuit court did not
abuse its discretion in admitting the statement. We therefore affirm.
Affirmed.
VIRDEN and KINARD, JJ., agree.
James Law Firm, by: William O. “Bill” James, Jr., for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Brooke Jackson, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
5