Opinion
CACR08-151
June 18, 2008
Appeal from the Columbia County Circuit Court [CR-06-211-5], Honorable Larry W.Chandler, judge, AFFIRMED.
Appellant, Shequita Joiner, was convicted by a Columbia County jury of aggravated robbery and theft of property. She was sentenced to thirty years in the Arkansas Department of Correction for aggravated robbery and to ten years for theft of property, with the sentences to be served consecutively. On appeal, Joiner only challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the convictions, arguing that the trial court erred in denying her motions for directed verdict because the State's witnesses offered contradictory evidence. We affirm.
In Navarro v. State, 371 Ark. 179, 186-87, ___ S.W.3d ___, ___ (2007) (citations omitted), our supreme court set forth the well-settled standard of review for challenging the sufficiency of the evidence:
We treat a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. This court has repeatedly held that in reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. We affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Furthermore, circumstantial evidence may provide a basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Whether the evidence excludes every other hypothesis is left to the jury to decide. The credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury and not the court. The trier of fact is free to believe all or part of any witness's testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence.
At the close of the State's case, Joiner moved for a directed verdict, stating that "all of the testimony of the State's witnesses, as taken together, even without any type of defense being put on, it is impossible that all of the State's witnesses are telling the truth. Every one of the State's witnesses, other than the law enforcement officers, have given contradictory testimony either as to what the Defendant had stated, allegedly stated to various individuals, as to who was present when the statements were given, as to the circumstances surrounding the robbery and the theft. . . . The Defense would state that given the contradictions from all the witnesses, that as a matter of law, that the Defense is entitled to a Directed Verdict of acquittal as to both charges." Joiner renewed her motion for directed verdict at the close of the case, stating, "After reviewing our motion based on both the arguments we had made earlier after the conclusion of the State's case, but also adding additional evidence; that the Defendant's testified to not having any involvement in these crimes with the supportive testimony of her witnesses, which is in direct contradiction of several of the State's witnesses, who testified yesterday and today." The trial court denied both motions.
We first note that we cannot reach portions of Joiner's arguments, as they are being made for the first time on appeal. On appeal, Joiner argues that the testimony was inconsistent, that the testimony was contradicted by the physical evidence, and that the evidence was purely circumstantial. As evidenced by the directed-verdict motions made above, Joiner only argued that there were contradictions in the testimony. She never argued to the trial court that the testimony was contradicted by the physical evidence, or that the evidence was purely circumstantial. For this reason, these arguments are not preserved for appeal. A party cannot change her arguments on appeal and instead is bound by the scope and nature of the arguments and objections made to the trial court. Abshure v. State, 79 Ark. App. 317, 87 S.W.3d 822 (2002).
Joiner's remaining argument, that the testimony of the State's witnesses was too contradictory to support her convictions for aggravated robbery and theft of property, was preserved for appeal by her directed-verdict motions. However, we find her argument unpersuasive. While there were some minor discrepancies in the State's witnesses' testimony, such as where they were or who was present when appellant told them about committing the criminal offenses, there was also a consistent theme throughout the testimony. Namely, there was testimony from several witnesses for the State that Joiner told them various things about the aggravated robbery and the theft of property, including that she held a sawed-off shotgun on a lady in the water office and took the lady's car, leaving it on an "old wooded road"; that Joiner stated that she "should have shot her"; that Joiner stated that the water office had cameras and that they were going to try to get the cameras because they "had them on tape"; that Joiner said that they should have killed the lady; that Joiner took a white vehicle from the lady; that Joiner had gone in and ordered the lady to "get down," pulled a gun on her, and took her keys, cell phone, and car; and there was also testimony that when asked, Joiner said that she had robbed the water department. One witness, Rachel Cole, testified that she took Joiner to the water office, and Joiner got out of the car and proceeded to go into the water office with a gun that was wrapped up in something; Cole also testified that she heard Joiner later talking about the robbery. The victim's car, along with a cash register drawer, was found a short distance from the water office, and some of the victim's personal items were found approximately twenty-five yards behind Cole's house.
Joiner argues that her motions for directed verdict should have been granted because there were inconsistencies in the State's witnesses' testimony and because her own testimony denying committing the offenses directly contradicted some of the State's witnesses' testimony. She is incorrect. Any inconsistencies in the testimony were for the jury to resolve, and this court is bound by the jury's resolution of the conflicting evidence. See Navarro, supra.
Affirmed.
BIRD and MARSHALL, JJ., agree.