Marvin Stuart v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 131
Reason: I attest to the
accuracy and integrity of this
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
document
Date: 2021-06-30 15:02:42
Foxit PhantomPDF Version:
DIVISION IV
9.7.5 No. CR-19-744

Opinion Delivered: February 19, 2020

MARVIN STUART
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BOONE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 05CR-18-318]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE GORDON WEBB,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED

MIKE MURPHY, Judge

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

2
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, 593 S.W.3d 51. 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

3
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 evidence established that Stuart was physically fighting and resisting an

armed police officer, and during the altercation, he forcefully grabbed at the officer’s holster.

Officer Applegate did not have a drawn weapon and was not prepared to defend himself.

Officer Applegate’s testimony described the level of fight in Stuart as intense, and Officer

Applegate testified he was fully exerted. Further, Officer Applegate was unable to complete

Stuart’s arrest until another officer arrived to assist him, evidencing that Officer Applegate

was in a vulnerable position. The jury could reasonably infer from the evidence that Stuart’s

fighting with an armed police officer in an altercation at such close range that his gun could

easily discharge created a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to Officer

Applegate.

Stuart likens his case to Wooten, 32 Ark. App. 198, 799 S.W.2d 560, and Swaim, 78

Ark. App. 176, 79 S.W.3d 853. In Wooten, we held that because the appellant did not point

the gun at the officer or expressly threaten the officer, the appellant was not guilty of

aggravated assault. In Swaim, we held that where the appellant displayed a firearm but did

4
not point it at the officer or expressly make a threat and then dropped the weapon

demonstrated that the appellant was not guilty of aggravated assault.

Stuart’s case is more akin to J.N.A. v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 502, at 9, 532 S.W.3d

582, 589, which analyzed both Wooten and Swaim. We explained,

In [Wooten and Swaim], the officers were already armed and prepared to
defend themselves, and there was physical distance between Wooten and Swaim and
the officers. [In this case] however, appellant’s flight led them to a wet, slippery
concrete drainage canal that was poorly lit. Appellant had his hand on a gun in his
pocket as he was continuing to resist arrest and physically tussling with the officer
trying to subdue him.

We affirmed the aggravated-assault conviction, stating that the statute does

not require that a verbal threat be used; instead, it is the appellant’s overall conduct that

must be examined. Id.

As explained above, Stuart’s conduct of engaging in a physical fight with an armed

officer unprepared to defend himself created an increased level of danger reaching the

threshold of aggravated assault.

Stuart directs us to Officer Applegate’s testimony that he could not say with 100

percent certainty that Stuart was trying to grab his gun. However, Officer Applegate also

testified that he believed Stuart was doing everything in his power to hurt him. The jury is

responsible for weighing the evidence and assessing the credibility of witnesses. Jenkins, 2020

Ark. App. 45, 593 S.W.3d 51. The jury may believe all or part of any witness’s testimony

and is responsible for resolving questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence.

Id. The jury was entitled to believe the portion of Officer Applegate’s testimony that

supported the conclusion that Stuart’s resistance and physical assault on armed Officer

5
Applegate constituted a substantial danger of death or serious physical injury to Officer

Applegate.

Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we hold that there was

sufficient evidence from which the jury could find that Stuart’s conduct created a substantial

danger of death or serious physical injury to Officer Applegate.

Affirmed.

WHITEAKER and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

Potts Law Office, by: Gary W. Potts, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

6