Stewart v. State

30 Citing cases

  1. Lowry v. State

    364 Ark. 6 (Ark. 2005)   Cited 22 times
    In Lowry v. State, 364 Ark. 6, 216 S.W.3d 101 (2005), the supreme court stated that under these circumstances, introduction of otherwise inadmissible evidence would be "harmless."

    [3] When circumstantial evidence alone is relied upon, it must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused, or it does not amount to substantial evidence. Stewart v. State, 362 Ark. 400, 208 S.W.3d 768 (2005); Harper v. State, 359 Ark. 142, 194 S.W.3d 730 (2004). The question of whether circumstantial evidence excludes every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence is for the jury to decide.

  2. Johnson v. State

    2013 Ark. App. 271 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013)   Cited 2 times

    A motion to dismiss in a bench trial, identical to a motion for a directed verdict in a jury trial, is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Stewart v. State, 362 Ark. 400, 403, 208 S.W.3d 768, 770 (2005). We will affirm the circuit court's denial of a motion to dismiss if there is substantial evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to support the jury's verdict.

  3. James v. Mounts

    2023 Ark. 53 (Ark. 2023)   Cited 2 times

    See Stewart v. State, 362 Ark. 400, 208 S.W.3d 768 (2005). The circuit court expressly found that this presumption had been rebutted.

  4. Dowdy v. State

    2015 Ark. 35 (Ark. 2015)   Cited 5 times

    Id. at 279, 275 S.W.3d at 146. When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that led to a conviction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Stewart v. State, 362 Ark. 400, 403, 208 S.W.3d 768, 770 (2005). In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court determines whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Morrow v. State, 2014 Ark. 510, at 4, ___ S.W.3d ___. Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture.

  5. Morrow v. State

    2014 Ark. 510 (Ark. 2014)   Cited 2 times

    When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that led to a conviction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State.” Stewart v. State, 362 Ark. 400, 403, 208 S.W.3d 768, 770 (2005) (internal citations omitted). “In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court determines whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial.

  6. Thornton v. State

    2014 Ark. 157 (Ark. 2014)   Cited 28 times
    In Thornton I, we did not reverse and dismiss Thornton's convictions for felon in possession of a firearm and abuse of a corpse.

    Although Thornton moved for a directed verdict, such a motion at a bench trial is a motion for dismissal. A motion to dismiss at a bench trial and a motion for a directed verdict at a jury trial are both challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. SeeArk. R.Crim. P. 33.1 (2013); Stewart v. State, 362 Ark. 400, 208 S.W.3d 768 (2005). In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court determines whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Stevenson v. State, 2013 Ark. 100, 426 S.W.3d 416. Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture.

  7. Brown v. State

    368 Ark. 344 (Ark. 2007)   Cited 13 times
    In Brown v. State, 368 Ark. 344, 347, 246 S.W.3d 414, 416 (2007), during cross-examination of the victim, Brown discovered that the State had a calendar where the victim and the victim's mother had set out events and dates related to the alleged crimes.

    When we grant a petition for review, this court reviews the case as if the appeal had originally been filed in this court. Stewart v. State, 362 Ark. 400, 208 S.W.3d 768 (2005). Facts

  8. Graham v. State

    365 Ark. 274 (Ark. 2006)   Cited 19 times

    A motion to dismiss at a bench trial and a motion for a directed verdict at a jury trial are challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. See Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1 (2004); Stewart v. State, 362 Ark. 400, 208 S.W.3d 768 (2005). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that led to a conviction, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State.

  9. Taylor v. State

    2023 Ark. App. 497 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023)

    To be convicted of failure to appear under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-54-120(b)(2), our supreme court has explained that the State must prove that the defendant (1) failed to appear, (2) without a reasonable excuse, (3) after having been lawfully set at liberty, and (4) upon the condition that he appear at a specified time, place, and court. Stewart v. State, 362 Ark. 400, 208 S.W.3d 768 (2005). Documentary proof of a judge's verbal or written order to appear in court at a specific time and place is required.

  10. Marek v. State

    2021 Ark. App. 447 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021)   Cited 3 times

    However, Marek's motion is treated as a motion to dismiss because this was a bench trial. Cora v. State, 2009 Ark.App. 431, 319 S.W.3d 281 (citing Stewart v. State, 362 Ark. 400, 208 S.W.3d 768 (2005)). On April 5, 2021, the supreme court granted Marek's motion to file a belated appeal.