Davis v. State

Citations: 2013 Ark. App. 658; 430 S.W.3d 190; 2013 WL 5935386; 2013 Ark. App. LEXIS 665Docket: CR-13-307

Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas; November 6, 2013; Arkansas; State Appellate Court

Original Court Document: View Document

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

Dameon Davis was found guilty of two counts of aggravated robbery by a jury, which followed his appeal concerning the denial of a pretrial motion to suppress evidence from a traffic stop and the revocation of his probation for a prior aggravated assault. The robberies occurred on October 18, 2011, at two gas stations in Blytheville, where the assailant, described as wearing all black with a white rag over his face, threatened clerks with a small revolver and stole $200 and $300 from each location, respectively. 

Sergeant Kyle Lively, responding to the robberies, became interested in a vehicle leaving the vicinity, which was linked to a previous arrest of its driver, Quintrell Richardson. Upon stopping the vehicle, which contained Davis and another passenger, police discovered one and five-dollar bills scattered on the floor and found clothing matching the robber's description. Davis initially provided a false name and was arrested for that offense.

The jury's conviction was upheld as the evidence was deemed sufficient, given the car's proximity to the crime scene, the amount of money found, and the clothing recovered. The court established that substantial evidence, including circumstantial evidence, supported the verdict. Davis was sentenced to ten years for the robberies and six years for probation revocation, with the sentences running concurrently.

Circumstantial evidence must exclude all reasonable hypotheses of innocence to be deemed substantial, a determination made by the jury unless it involves speculation. In this case, Davis was convicted as an accomplice to aggravated robbery, defined as using or threatening physical force to commit theft, with aggravated robbery occurring when armed with a deadly weapon. Criminal liability extends to those who aid or encourage the commission of a crime. Key factors in establishing accomplice liability include proximity to the crime, opportunity, and suggestive association with the perpetrator.

Substantial evidence supported Davis’s conviction: he was found in a vehicle moving away from the crime scene, in possession of a significant amount of cash that matched the description of the stolen money. Additionally, he provided a false name to law enforcement, which can imply guilt. Other evidence indicated shared proceeds from the robbery among the vehicle's occupants and matching descriptions of clothing worn by one passenger to that of the robber. 

Regarding the motion to suppress evidence, Davis argued that police lacked reasonable suspicion for the traffic stop. However, the court upheld the denial of this motion, confirming that reasonable suspicion existed, and conducted a de novo review of the circumstances surrounding the stop, affirming the circuit court's findings.

In Yarbrough v. State, the court established that a circuit court's ruling can only be reversed if it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Law enforcement officers can stop and detain individuals if they have reasonable suspicion that a felony is being committed or is about to be committed, based on specific facts or circumstances rather than mere conjecture. This reasonable suspicion standard is less stringent than probable cause and can be established through various factors including the officer’s knowledge of the suspect, the time of day, location, and any known criminal activity in the area.

In this case, Sergeant Lively had reasonable suspicion to stop Quintrell Richardson’s vehicle due to the proximity of the vehicle to a recent robbery, Lively’s prior knowledge of Richardson's criminal history involving firearms, and previous sightings of Richardson's car at another robbery scene. These circumstances provided sufficient grounds for suspicion, aligning with precedents that recognize similar facts as justifying police action.

Additionally, the court addressed Davis’s appeal regarding the revocation of his probation for aggravated assault. Davis argued that the court did not specify the violated probation condition; however, the record indicated that his probation was revoked for committing aggravated robbery. The State only needed to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that Davis violated a probation condition, which is a lower standard than that required for a criminal conviction. Given the substantial evidence supporting Davis's aggravated robbery conviction, the revocation was affirmed.