Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Evans v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

May 28, 2015

DESMOND EVANS, APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE

Editorial Note:

This opinion is uncorrected and subject to revision before publication in the printed official reporter.

APPEAL FROM THE UNION COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. NO. CR 11-545. HONORABLE HAMILTON H. SINGLETON, JUDGE.

Rickey H. Hicks, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.

OPINION

COURTNEY HUDSON GOODSON, Associate Justice.

A jury empaneled in the Union County Circuit Court found appellant Desmond Evans guilty of capital murder in connection with the death of a toddler in his care. The circuit court sentenced Evans to a term of life in prison without parole. For reversal, Evans alleges that the circuit court erred (1) in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of first- and second-degree murder; (2) in admitting certain autopsy photographs; and (3) in admitting a letter Evans wrote and attempted to send from the jail. We affirm Evans's conviction and sentence.

Evans's conviction stems from the death of twenty-one-month-old Cheris Samuels while she was in Evans's care. According to the evidence presented at trial, Evans was in a relationship with Cheris's mother, Josie Payne. Evans, Payne, and her two children lived together in the home of Evans's grandparents, along with other members of Evans's family. On August 9, 2011, Payne left the house at approximately 6:30 p.m. to attend an anger-management workshop and Cheris remained at the house with Evans. Payne returned home around 8:30 p.m., and Evans told her that Cheris was asleep on the sofa. Some thirty minutes later, Evans called for Payne and told her that a liquid was coming out of Cheris's mouth. Upon inspecting the child, they discovered that she was not breathing and that her eyes, lips, and face were blue. Evans telephoned 911, and paramedics, Jill Goodwin and Seth Rainwater, responded to the call. According to their trial testimony, when they arrived, they found Cheris on the kitchen floor. She was unresponsive and had no heartbeat. The paramedics attempted to resuscitate her, but they were unsuccessful. Later, she was pronounced dead at the hospital. Dr. Daniel Dye, an associate medical examiner for the State of Arkansas, testified that Cheris died from multiple strikes to her head with a blunt object. He stated that the head injuries caused bleeding within the brain, which eventually resulted in her death.

At trial, the State introduced an unsigned letter that the Union County Sheriff's office had confiscated from the Union County jail while Evans was there awaiting trial. Union County Sheriff Deputy Paul Kugler stated that the letter was placed in the outgoing mail for the Union County jail, but that it could not be mailed because there was no return address or return name on it.[1] Kugler testified that when he opened the letter to ascertain whether it was safe to shred, he discovered that the letter solicited the intended recipient to write a letter claiming responsibility for the child's death as the result of an accident. Evans testified at trial and admitted that he had authored the letter.

At the conclusion of the trial, the jury found Evans guilty of capital murder, and the court sentenced him to life in prison without parole. From that verdict, Evans filed this appeal.

For his first point, Evans argues that the circuit court abused its discretion in failing to instruct the jury on the lesser-included offenses of first- and second-degree murder. According to Evans, the circuit court improperly ruled that he raised a defense of absolute innocence, which barred submission of lesser-included offenses to the jury. The State contends that Evans failed to preserve this argument for appeal because he agreed that his defense was that of absolute innocence and because he failed to proffer an instruction on first-or second-degree murder.

We hold that this issue is not preserved for our review. This court has long held that to preserve an objection to the circuit court's failure to give an instruction, the appellant must make a proffer of the proposed instruction to the judge. See, e.g., Fincham v. State, 2013 Ark. 204, 427 S.W.3d 643; Stewart v. State, 316 Ark. 153, 870 S.W.2d 752 (1994). Because Evans failed to proffer an instruction for any lesser-included offense, this issue is not preserved for our review.

Evans's second point on appeal is that the circuit court erred in admitting certain photographs of Cheris's brain that were taken during the autopsy. Evans argues that the prejudicial effect of the photos outweighed any probative value and that, accordingly, the circuit court should have excluded them. The State responds that the photographs were necessary to explain the cause of death and were properly admitted.

We have held that the admission of photographs is a matter left to the sound discretion of the circuit court, and we will not reverse absent an abuse of that discretion. Airsman v. State, 2014 Ark. 500, 451 S.W.3d 565. When photographs are helpful to explain testimony, they are ordinarily admissible. Id. Moreover, the mere fact that a photograph is inflammatory or cumulative is not, standing alone, sufficient reason to exclude it. Lard v. State, 2014 Ark. 1, 431 S.W.3d 249. Even the most gruesome photographs may be admissible if they assist the trier of fact in any of the following ways: (1) by shedding light on some issue; (2) by proving a necessary element of the case; (3) by enabling a witness to testify more effectively; (4) by corroborating testimony; or (5) by enabling jurors to better understand the testimony. Anderson v. ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.