Cates v. State

Douglas Martin CATES v. STATE

CR 97-263                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 25, 1997


1.   Motions -- directed verdict -- challenge to sufficiency of evidence. -- A
     motion for directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency
     of the evidence.

2.   Evidence -- sufficiency of -- determination. -- In considering whether
     a conviction is supported by sufficient evidence, the
     appellate court need only consider the evidence that supports
     the guilty verdict; it views the evidence in the light most
     favorable to the State and affirms if there is substantial
     evidence to support the verdict; substantial evidence is that
     which is forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach
     a conclusion one way or the other and permits the trier of
     fact to reach a conclusion without having to resort to
     speculation or conjecture.

3.   Evidence -- sufficient evidence presented to permit case to go to jury. --
     Appellant's confession, the testimony of the engineer who
     worked on the train where the homicide occurred, and the
     medical testimony concerning the cause of the victim's death
     were beyond question sufficient to permit the case to go to
     the jury.

4.   Jurisdiction -- court's authority to try person for crime is question of
     territorial jurisdiction. -- Although sometimes referred to as a
     venue question, the issue of a court's authority to try a
     person for a crime is more properly characterized as one of
     territorial jurisdiction.

5.   Jurisdiction -- when State is required to prove court's jurisdiction --
     presumption favoring place where charge filed. -- At a criminal trial,
     the State is not required to prove the court's jurisdiction
     unless positive evidence is admitted that affirmatively shows
     it to be lacking; Ark. Code Ann.  5-1-111(b) (Repl. 1993)
     created a presumption in favor of jurisdiction in the place
     where the charge is filed by the State. 

6.   Jurisdiction -- appellant's jurisdictional claim without merit. -- Where
     appellant presented no positive evidence that the offense
     occurred anywhere other than in the county in which he was
     charged with first-degree murder, his jurisdictional claim was
     without merit.


     Appeal from Conway Circuit Court; Paul Danielson, Judge;
affirmed.
     Michael L. Allison, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  C. Joseph Cordi, Jr., Asst.
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
     David Newbern, Judge.
     Douglas Cates was convicted of first-degree murder and
sentenced to life in prison.  He contends the evidence against him
was insufficient to have been permitted to go to the jury; thus,
his motion for directed verdict should have been granted.  He also
contends the Trial Court erred in rejecting his contention that he
was being tried in the wrong county.  As Mr. Cates presented no
positive evidence that the crime did not occur in Conway County,
and as the evidence against him was clearly sufficient to overcome
his motion for a directed verdict, the conviction is affirmed.
     Mr. Cates gave two tape-recorded statements in which he
admitted killing Lynn Neeley.  According to Mr. Cates, he and Mr.
Neeley entered the locomotive cab of the second engine of a freight
train in North Little Rock at approximately 8:00 p.m. on February
12, 1996.  While on the train, the two men drank whiskey and
eventually began arguing.  After telling Mr. Cates that he could
kill him, Mr. Neeley pulled out a knife.  Mr. Cates took the knife
away from Mr. Neeley, pushed him against the wall, and stabbed him
in the back.  When the knife broke, Mr. Cates forced Mr. Neeley to
the floor so that Mr. Neeley was lying on his stomach.  Mr. Cates
then grabbed a hatchet from his pack and hit Mr. Neeley in the head
several times as he stood over him.  Then, Mr. Cates, who was
unable to get off the moving train, drank more liquor and passed
out.
      Mr. Cates was charged by information on February 14, 1996, in
the Conway County Circuit Court with first-degree murder and with
being an habitual offender.  At a probable-cause hearing held that
day, the Trial Court found that the Conway County Circuit Court had
jurisdiction of the matter because "the best and only information
we have is this [crime] occurred in Conway County."     
     During the trial, Charles Norman, the engineer who worked on
the train where the homicide occurred, testified that on February
12, 1996, he saw Mr. Neeley's body and Mr. Cates in the cab when
the train stopped between Ozark and Mulberry.  He testified that
the victim's skull was visibly crushed.  
     Jim Freeman, Mulberry Chief of Police, met the train in
Mulberry and took Mr. Cates into custody.  He testified that the
victim was covered in an "extreme amount of blood," and that he
removed from the victim's body a hatchet which appeared to be
covered with fresh blood and hair.  A knife blade was also found on
the train.  Dr. Frank Peretti, who performed the autopsy, testified
that the cause of Mr. Neeley's death was twenty-one multiple shock-
force head injuries.    

                 1.  Sufficiency of the evidence
     A motion for directed verdict is a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence.  Carter v. State, 324 Ark. 395, 398,
921 S.W.2d 924, 925 (1996).  In considering whether a conviction is
supported by sufficient evidence, we need only consider the
evidence that supports the guilty verdict, and we view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the State and affirm if there is
substantial evidence to support the verdict. Martin v. State, 328
Ark. 420, 426, 944 S.W.2d 512, 515 (1997); Hicks v. State, 327 Ark.
652, 658, 941 S.W.2d 387, 391 (1997).  Substantial evidence is that
which is forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a
conclusion one way or the other and permits the trier of fact to
reach a conclusion without having to resort to speculation or
conjecture.  McGehee v. State, 328 Ark. 404, 410, 943 S.W.2d 585,
588 (1997).
     The first-degree murder statute provides as follows:  "(a) A
person commits murder in the first degree if . . . (2) With the
purpose of causing death of another person, he causes the death of
another person."  Ark. Code Ann.  5-10-102 (Repl. 1993).
     The confession, the engineer's testimony, and the medical
testimony as to the cause of death were beyond question sufficient
to permit the matter to go to the jury.

                        2.  Jurisdiction
     Although sometimes referred to as a venue question, the issue
of a court's authority to try a person for a crime is more properly
characterized as one of territorial jurisdiction.  See Webb v.
State, 323 Ark. 80, 83, 913 S.W.2d 259, 261 (1996).  "In all
criminal prosecutions the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy
and public trial by impartial jury of the county in which a crime
shall have been committed; provided that the venue may be changed
to any other county of the judicial district in which the
indictment is found . . ." Ark. Const. art. 2,  10; State v. Webb,
323 Ark. at 83; 913 S.W.2d  at 261.  Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-
88-105(b) (Repl. 1993), "[t]he local jurisdiction of circuit courts
. . . shall be of offenses committed within the respective counties
in which they are held."  At a criminal trial, the State is not
required to prove the court's jurisdiction unless positive evidence
is admitted that affirmatively shows it to be lacking.  Ark. Code
Ann.  5-1-111(b) (Repl. 1993); Nicholson v. State, 319 Ark. 566,
571, 892 S.W.2d 507, 510 (1995); Findley v. State, 307 Ark. 53, 59,
818 S.W.2d 242, 246 (1991).  In Higgins v. State, 317 Ark. 555,
558, 879 S.W.2d 424, 425 (1994), we noted that  5-1-111(b) created
a presumption in favor of jurisdiction in the place where the
charge is filed by the State. 
     The train carrying Mr. Cates and Mr. Neeley was traveling
west, from North Little Rock to Van Buren.  Mr. Cates was unsure
when the argument between him and Mr. Neeley began.  In his first
statement, Mr. Cates said that he did not know if the argument
began when the train was in North Little Rock, but that the last
thing that he remembered was going through the tunnel on the west
side of Conway.  In a later statement, he said that the argument
began after the train had passed through the tunnel.  Mr. Cates
agreed that the argument may have started about ten minutes after
the train passed through the tunnel.  At trial, there was testimony
that the tunnel is located in Faulkner County, approximately three
miles east of the Conway County-Faulkner County line.  
     Mr. Cates presented no positive evidence that the offense
occurred anywhere other than in Conway County.  Mr. Cates's
jurisdictional claim is thus without merit.

                  3.  Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(h).
     In accordance with Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 4-3(h), the record has
been reviewed for erroneous rulings prejudicial to Mr. Cates, and
none has been found.     
     Affirmed.