From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Lunon v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas (Division I)
Sep 25, 1978
569 S.W.2d 663 (Ark. 1978)

Opinion

No. CR 78-44

Opinion delivered September 5, 1978 [Rehearing denied September 25, 1978.]

1. CRIMINAL LAW — BANK ROBBERY — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE. — Where over 400 pictures of two bank robbers were introduced into evidence, 27 of which were enlarged, some of them depicting unmasked facial features of both robbers, and a witness positively identified appellant in a lineup and at trial as one of the robbers, the evidence was sufficient for his conviction. 2. CRIMINAL LAW — IDENTIFICATION OF SUSPECT CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES — MATTERS FOR JURY. — It is for the jury to decide the credibility of witnesses and the question of identification. 3. APPEAL ERROR — SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE — EVIDENCE VIEWED IN LIGHT MOST FAVORABLE TO APPELLEE. — In determining the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, the Supreme Court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and affirms if there is any substantial evidence to support the jury's verdict. 4. CRIMINAL PROCEDURE MOTION FOR SEVERANCE FAILURE TO RENEW MOTION AT CLOSE OF EVIDENCE CONSTITUTES WAIVER. Where appellant did not renew his motion for severance before or at the close of all the evidence, severance was waived under Rule 22.1(b), Rules of Crim. Proc.

Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division, William J. Kirby, Judge; affirmed.

John W. Achor, Public Defender, by: William R. Simpson, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.

Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen., by: Joyce Williams Warren, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee.


A jury found appellant guilty of the crimes of aggravated robbery and theft of property and assessed his punishment in the Department of Correction at five years for aggravated robbery and one year for theft of property. Appellant first contends that the evidence was insufficient. We cannot agree.

A local bank was robbed at gun point by two males. One witness, a bank employee, watched the robbers leave the bank, walk across the street and through a shopping area into the woods behind it. Although she observed appellant from the back only, she positively identified him as one of the robbers in a lineup and at trial. The branch manager of the bank was unable to identify appellant positively but gave a general description of him. Four hundred and twenty-nine photographs of the robbery, taken by the bank's automatic camera, were in evidence for the jury's consideration in determining appellant's identity. Twenty-seven of these pictures were enlarged, some of which depicted unmasked facial features of both robbers. It was for the jury to decide the credibility of the witnesses and the question of identification. Tarkington v. State, 250 Ark. 972, 469 S.W.2d 93 (1971); and Lacy v. State, 240 Ark. 84, 398 S.W.2d 508 (1966).

Appellant's codefendant, Donald Edward Wade, also appealed his conviction. On May 30, 1978, we granted his motion to dismiss his appeal.

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and affirm if there is any substantial evidence to Support the jury's verdict. Murphy v. State, 248 Ark. 794, 454 S.W.2d 302 (1970). Here the recited evidence was amply substantial.

Appellant also argues that the court erred in failing to grant his pretrial motion for severance. Rules of Crim. Proc., Rule 22.1(b) states:

If a defendant's pretrial motion for severance is overruled, he may renew the motion on the same grounds before or at the close of all the evidence. Severance is waived by failure to renew the motion.

Appellant did not renew his motion before or at the close of all the evidence. Accordingly, severance was waived.

Affirmed.

We agree: HARRIS, C.J., and GEORGE ROSE SMITH and HOWARD, JJ.


Summaries of

Lunon v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas (Division I)
Sep 25, 1978
569 S.W.2d 663 (Ark. 1978)
Case details for

Lunon v. State

Case Details

Full title:Earl James LUNON, Jr. v. STATE of Arkansas

Court:Supreme Court of Arkansas (Division I)

Date published: Sep 25, 1978

Citations

569 S.W.2d 663 (Ark. 1978)
569 S.W.2d 663

Citing Cases

Yacono v. State

The test is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Lunon v. State, 264 Ark. 188, 569…

Wynn v. State

Absent renewal of the motion for severance, the objection to joining the charges for trial is waived. Ark. R.…