The decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the sound discretion of the circuit court, and this court will not reverse a circuit court's decision regarding the admission of evidence absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Gillean v. State , 2015 Ark. App. 698, at 14, 478 S.W.3d 255, 264. An abuse of discretion is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the circuit court's decision but requires that the circuit court acted improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration.
We review a circuit court's decision to admit evidence in the sentencing phase of a trial for an abuse of discretion. Gillean v. State, 2015 Ark.App. 698, at 28, 478 S.W.3d 255, 272. We will reverse a sentencing decision only if the defendant can show that he was prejudiced by the erroneously admitted evidence.
(Supp. 2021). Gillean v. State, 2015 Ark.App. 698, 478 S.W.3d 255. For the reasons stated above, we affirm Wilcoxon's convictions and the resulting sentences.
2019) (theft of property is a Class A misdemeanor if the value of the property is $1000 or less); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-103(b)(4)(B) (theft of property is a class A misdemeanor if "the property has inherent, subjective, or idiosyncratic value to its owner or possessor even if the property has no market value or replacement cost"); Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-401(b)(a) (Repl. 2013) (Class A misdemeanor punishable by up to one year in prison); Gillean v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 698, at 11, 478 S.W.3d 255, 263 (rejecting argument that commercial-burglary statute requires the intent to commit a felony and holding that misdemeanor theft of property is sufficient to support a commercial-burglary conviction). Milner's unchallenged theft conviction alone thus constitutes sufficient evidence to support his conviction for residential burglary.
Circuit courts have broad discretion in deciding evidentiary issues, and those rulings are not reversed on appeal absent an abuse of discretion. E.g., Conte v. State, 2015 Ark. 220, at 26, 463 S.W.3d 686, 702; Gillean v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 698, 478 S.W.3d 255. The standard test for admissibility of expert testimony is whether the testimony will aid the trier of fact in understanding the evidence or in determining a fact in issue.
Although Webb addresses the sufficiency issue last, we must address it first because of double-jeopardy concerns. Gillean v. State , 2015 Ark. App. 698, 478 S.W.3d 255. This court treats a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Nor will this court reverse absent a showing of prejudice.Lewis v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 442, at 11, 528 S.W.3d 312, 319-20 (citing Gillean v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 698, 478 S.W.3d 255). Brown v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 616, at 6, 509 S.W.3d 671, 675 (citing Bruner v. State, 2013 Ark. 68, at 12, 426 S.W.3d 386, 393).
I. Sufficiency Wingfield's sufficiency argument is his third argument on appeal, but because of double-jeopardy concerns, we consider challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence before addressing other arguments. Gillean v. State , 2015 Ark. App. 698, 478 S.W.3d 255. This court treats a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. SeeTubbs v. State , 370 Ark. 47, 257 S.W.3d 47 (2007).
The jury sentenced Lacy to only forty years after his sentencing hearing, during which the State played a videotape of Lacy's statement to police in which he confessed to sexually assaulting and raping his niece multiple times when she was between the ages of three and six. Because he received less than the statutory maximum sentence on the rape charge, he cannot show prejudice. See Cartwright v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 425, at 6, 501 S.W.3d 849, 852-53; Nelson v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 697, 477 S.W.3d 569; Gillean v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 698, 478 S.W.3d 255. Affirmed.
Detherow v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 478, 444 S.W.3d 867. An abuse of discretion is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the trial court's decision but requires that the circuit court acted improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. Gillean v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 698, 478 S.W.3d 255. Moreover, we will not reverse a trial court's evidentiary ruling absent a showing of prejudice. Id.