Wilson v. State

6 Citing cases

  1. United States v. Fonzie

    Case No. 4:15-cr-00281 KGB (E.D. Ark. Jun. 19, 2017)

    A defendant convicted under this subsection must do more than take a substantial step toward committing the offense; they must take an action that would constitute the offense if the attendant circumstances were as the defendant believed them to be. For example, the Arkansas Court of Appeals held that there was sufficient evidence to support a defendant's conviction for attempted theft by deception, despite the fact that the defendant's victims were not deceived by his actions, because the defendant intended to deceive his victims and he "believed he was deceiving the victims" at the time of his arrest. Wilson v. State, 939 S.W.2d 313, 315 (Ark. App. 1997). This provision is within the generic federal definition of attempt.

  2. Furlow v. State

    2023 Ark. App. 192 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023)   Cited 3 times

    The exhibits clearly show that a parole-revocation warrant had been issued for Furlow on May 10, 2019, approximately two months prior to the murders. E.g., Wilson v. State, 56 Ark.App. 47, 52, 939 S.W.2d 313, 316 (1997). Nothing in the record supports Furlow's claim at trial that he was incarcerated in Craighead County pending his trial on these charges because he could not make bond.

  3. Bush v. State

    90 Ark. App. 373 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005)   Cited 12 times

    This court affirms the conviction if it is supported by substantial evidence. Wilson v. State, 56 Ark. App. 47, 939 S.W.2d 313 (1997). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence convicting him, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Bailey v. State, 334 Ark. 43, 972 S.W.2d 239 (1998).

  4. Brown v. State

    74 Ark. App. 281 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001)   Cited 11 times

    On review, the appellate court views the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the appellee and affirms if there is substantial evidence to support the conviction. Wilson v. State, 56 Ark. App. 47, 48, 939 S.W.2d 313, 314 (1997). Substantial evidence is that which has sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture.

  5. Donovan v. State

    32 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. Ct. App. 2000)   Cited 12 times
    In Donovan v. State, 71 Ark. App. 226, 32 S.W.3d 1 (2000), this court held that evidence of the defendant's use of crack cocaine was properly admitted under Rule 404(b) in a prosecution for theft by deception, where it was independently relevant of the defendant's motive in using the victim's checks and where it was evidence that the defendant's use of the checks was unauthorized.

    This court affirms the conviction if it is supported by substantial evidence. Wilson v. State, 56 Ark. App. 47, 939 S.W.2d 313 (1997). When a defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence convicting him, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Bailey v. State, 334 Ark. 43, 972 S.W.2d 239 (1998).

  6. Ward v. State

    981 S.W.2d 96 (Ark. Ct. App. 1998)   Cited 6 times

    When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal from a criminal conviction, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the State and will affirm if the finding of guilt is supported by substantial evidence. Wilson v. State, 56 Ark. App. 47, 939 S.W.2d 313 (1997). 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 resort to speculation or conjecture. Argo v. State, 53 Ark. App. 103, 920 S.W.2d 18 (1996).