Geralrod Williams v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 89
Elizabeth Perry ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document DIVISION III
No. CR-20-426
2023.06.22 14:16:28 -05'00'
2023.001.20174
Opinion Delivered February 24, 2021

GERALROD WILLIAMS APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 30CR-19-135]
V.
HONORABLE CHRIS E WILLIAMS,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE AFFIRMED

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 theft. 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.

2
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

3
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, bought $2,600 worth of electronics, and immediately

returned those items to another store in exchange for cash. We have previously held that mere

possession of a forged instrument by one who offers it, without any reasonable explanation

of the manner in which it was acquired, warrants an inference that the possessor committed

the forgery. DeShazer v. State, 94 Ark. App. 363, 367, 230 S.W.3d 285, 289 (2006). We find no

error in the court’s denial of Williams’s motion for directed verdict as to the forgery charge.

Williams also challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his theft conviction.

Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-36-103(a)(1) & (b)(3)(A) (Repl. 2013), a

person commits theft of property if he knowingly takes or exercises unauthorized control or

makes an unauthorized transfer of interest in the property of another person with the purpose

of depriving the owner of the property. A person acts knowingly with respect to the person’s

conduct when, among other things, he is aware that his conduct is of that nature. Ark. Code

Ann. § 5-2-202(2) (Repl. 2013). The evidence supporting this point is much the same as above.

Williams took valuable merchandise from Walmart on false pretenses, depriving Walmart of

those goods without actually paying the agreed-upon consideration for them. Moreover, he

4
then returned those items and received cash from Walmart, having never given Walmart

anything of value for the goods. Clearly, Williams first deprived Walmart of the goods and

then deprived the company of money. Again, the sequence of events indicates that the actions

were intentional and planned, and we find no reversible error in the court’s denial of Williams’s

motion for directed verdict.

Next, Williams challenges the trial court’s denial of his motion for a mistrial. A mistrial

is an extreme and drastic remedy that will be granted only when there has been an error so

prejudicial that justice cannot be served by continuing the trial or when the fundamental

fairness of the trial has been manifestly affected. Gould v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 124, at 1, 484

S.W.3d 678, 680. The trial court has broad discretion in granting or denying a mistrial, and on

appeal, this Court will not reverse that decision absent an abuse of discretion. Id. Declaring a

mistrial is proper only when the error is beyond repair. Id. We find no reversible error in the

court’s denial of Williams’s motion because Gilbert’s statement was simply too vague to satisfy

the high bar required for a mistrial. Unlike in Novak v. State, 287 Ark. 271, 690 S.W.2d 499

(1985), on which Williams relies, Gilbert did not indicate that Williams had been arrested,

convicted, or held in custody.

Next, Williams argues that the trial court erred in allowing Wilson to testify about

viewing a screenshot provided to her by the Little Rock Walmart store. We review evidentiary

ruling for abuse of discretion. Campbell v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 59, at 4, 512 S.W.3d 663, 666.

Those rulings will not be reversed absent proof of both an abuse of discretion and

prejudice. Id. Williams claims that the testimony was inadmissible hearsay. He is wrong.

Hearsay is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or

5
hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted. Ark. R. Evid. 801(c)

(2020). Here, the statements in question were made by Wilson, who was at trial and could be

questioned. In describing the screenshot, she was providing testimony about her own first-

hand experience. The hearsay rule is not violated when a witness testifies about a physical

object, such as a picture, that is not presented in court. Taylor v. State, 88 Ark. App. 269, 271,

197 S.W.3d 31, 32 (2004). Moreover, Williams cannot demonstrate prejudice given the

overwhelming evidence against him, including the videotape from the Malvern store and the

return receipt with his signature.

Finally, Williams also challenges the admission of the return receipt bearing his

signature. It is well settled that arguments not raised at trial will not be addressed for the first

time on appeal. Morgan v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 31, at 3, 480 S.W.3d 867, 869. Williams did not

object to the signature or the return receipt at trial, and he is now barred from making those

arguments on appeal.

We affirm.

GLADWIN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

James Law Firm, 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.

6