Jerome Little v. State of Arkansas

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 317
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-24-449

JEROME LITTLE Opinion Delivered May 21, 2025

APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. 17CR-22-939]

STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE MARC MCCUNE, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

CASEY R. TUCKER, Judge

On December 1, 2022, the State charged Jerome Little with aggravated assault on a family

or household member, third-degree domestic battering, and three counts of second-degree

endangering the welfare of a minor. Following a jury trial in Crawford County Circuit Court,

Little was convicted of misdemeanor domestic battering in the third degree. Little appeals his

conviction—his sole point on appeal being that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion

for directed verdict. We disagree.

Little shares an infant daughter with Elsie Doshier, now Greenwood. On the morning

of November 27, 2022, he went to Elsie’s house and insisted that she allow him to take their six-

month-old baby with him. When Elsie refused, Little hit her, knocked her over an ottoman,

and carried her to the bathroom where he proceeded to put her in the bathtub, hitting her head

against the tile in the process. He then choked her until she could not breathe, her vision
became blurry, and though she could hear Little talking, she could not understand what he was

saying.

Little left Elsie in the bathtub and went to her bedroom to get the infant. Elsie recovered

enough to call 911 and get to the bedroom to stop Little from taking the baby. She also called

her then-boyfriend—now husband—Jason Greenwood. By the time Jason, Van Buren police

officers, and paramedics arrived at Elsie’s house, Little was gone. According to the testimony of

the officers and paramedics, Elsie was visibly shaken and crying. She had bruises and abrasions

on her face and neck and complained of pain all over, especially in her face and neck. She

reported that Little was the one who had inflicted her injuries. When Little attacked Elsie, two

of Elsie’s other children, little girls aged two and four, were present and in the living room where

the attack began. The baby was in a playpen in Elsie’s bedroom.

Elsie was transported by ambulance to the hospital where she was seen in the emergency

room. The emergency-room doctor who examined Elsie testified she had bruising on her neck

and tenderness on the left clavicle and on the left side of her chest wall. Some of her injuries

caused him concern because they were consistent with obstruction of her airway or injury to her

vascular system or blood supply. The doctor saw no fractures. He did not think Elsie had any

permanent or extreme injuries.

Little was charged in December 2022. In June 2023, Little went to Elsie’s house with a

prepared statement for her to copy onto her own paper and sign. With a few minor edits to

make the statement feel like her own words, Elsie wrote:

I, Elsie Louise Doshier, am wrighting [sic] this letter of my own free will.
I would like to have any and all charges associated with myself on Nov 27th 2022
to be dismissed. These charges are to include but not limited to assault & the

2
welfare of my children The accusations were made under duress and fear for my
safety and the safety of my children from Edward Doshier at no time was my life
endangered or that of my children.

Little drove Elsie to his attorney’s office where she signed this statement in front of a

notary public.

At trial, Elsie testified that she wrote and signed this statement in part because she loves

her baby; the baby loves her father, who is Little; and Little loves the baby. She also testified

that she believed Little did not mean to do what he did. However, she testified, Little did commit

the acts about which she had testified and inflict the injuries depicted in the photos.

At the close of the State’s case, Little moved for a directed verdict. The court granted

the motion as to the three counts of endangering the welfare of a minor. Little chose not to put

on any evidence and renewed his motions, the remainder of which the court denied. The case

went to the jury on the charges of aggravated assault on a family member and third-degree

domestic battering. The jury was unable to reach a unanimous decision on the aggravated-assault

charge; thus, the judge declared a mistrial on that charge. The jury returned a verdict of guilty

on the charge of domestic battering and recommended a sentence of one year in the county jail

and a fine of $2,500. The judge sentenced Little accordingly, and this appeal followed.

As is applicable in the present case, Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-26-305(a) (Repl.

2024) provides that a person commits domestic battery in the third degree if “[w]ith the purpose

of causing physical injury to a family or household member, the person causes physical injury to

a family or household member.” “Family or household member” includes persons who have a

child together, as in the present case. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-26-302(2)(G) (Repl. 2024). “Physical

injury” includes impairment of a physical condition, infliction of substantial pain, or infliction

3
of bruising, swelling, or a visible mark associated with physical trauma. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-

102(14) (Repl. 2024). “A person acts purposely with respect to his or her conduct or a result of

his or her conduct when it is the person’s conscious object to engage in conduct of that nature

or to cause the result.” Ark. Code. Ann. § 5-2-202(1) (Repl. 2024). On appeal, Little’s only

challenge is to the sufficiency of the evidence to support that he had the requisite intent to

commit third-degree domestic battery.

A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. When

reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we assess the evidence in the light most

favorable to the State and consider only that evidence that supports the verdict. Crider v. State,

2024 Ark. App. 544, 700 S.W.3d 799. We affirm the conviction if it is supported by substantial

evidence. Id. “Substantial evidence is evidence that is forceful enough to compel a conclusion

beyond suspicion or conjecture.” Vaughan v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 439, at 5, 555 S.W.3d 922,

925. It is not the role of the appellate court to assess the credibility of the witnesses, as that duty

falls solely within the province of the trier of fact. Donaldson v. State, 2016 Ark. App 391, at 5,

500 S.W.3d 768, 771. “Likewise, it is axiomatic that the trier of fact is free to believe all or part

of a witness's testimony.” Id. With regard to proof of intent, this court has stated:

[A] criminal defendant’s intent can seldom be proven by direct evidence and must
usually be inferred from the circumstances surrounding the crime. Because intent
can seldom be proven by direct evidence, the jurors are allowed to draw upon
their common knowledge and experience to infer it from the circumstances. And
because of the obvious difficulty in ascertaining a defendant’s intent, a
presumption exists that a person intends the natural and probable consequences
of his or her acts.

Spight v. State, 101 Ark. App. 400, 401–02, 278 S.W.3d 599, 600–01 (2008).

4
In the present case, Elsie testified that Little hit her; carried her into the bathroom where

he forcefully put her in the bathtub, hitting the side of her head on the tile while doing so;

choked her until she was unable to breathe and her vision became blurry; and hit her again.

This was consistent with Elsie’s call to 911, which the jury heard, and with what she told the

police officer, whose body-camera video the jury watched. Elsie also testified regarding the

photos of her injuries, which she averred were the result of Little’s attack on her. The jurors

were allowed to draw upon their common knowledge and experience to infer from these facts

that it was Little’s conscious object to engage in the conduct and cause the naturally resulting

injuries that constitute third-degree domestic battery. Moreover, a presumption exists that a

person intends the natural and probable consequences of his acts. Spight, supra.

Little urges this court to reverse because Elsie testified that she “believed he didn’t mean

to do it.” However, Elsie’s beliefs are not determinative of whether Little’s conduct met the

statutory elements of third-degree domestic battery. And, the jury was free to believe parts of

Elsie’s testimony and reject other parts. Donaldson, supra. The evidence supports the jury’s

conclusion that Little acted with the purpose of causing physical injury and achieved his goal.

We affirm.

Affirmed.

KLAPPENBACH, C.J., and GLADWIN, J., agree.

Knutson Law Firm, by: Gregg A. Knutson, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

5