ARK.] 1 CASES DETERMINED IN THE SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS Billy Joe HENSON v. STATE of Arkansas CR 89-70 775 S.W.2d 896 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered September 18, 1989 [Rehearing denied October 30, 1989.1 1. MOTIONS — MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT IS A CHALLENGE TO THE SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE. — A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. 2. EVIDENCE — SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE COMPELS A CONCLUSION ONE WAY OR THE OTHER WITH REASONABLE CERTAINTY. — Substantial evidence is that which compels a conclusion one way or the other with reasonable certainty. 3. CRIMINAL LAW — THEFT OF PROPERTY — SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE TO SUPPORT CONVICTION. — Where the appellant was found crouched down by the store safe, jumped up saying that he had been caught, put his hand in his jacket pocket causing the store manager to think he had a gun, and then fled; and where the manager testified that he knew there was between $700 and $800 in the money bag the appellant took from the safe because he had put that amount in the bag, there was sufficient evidence to support the appellant's conviction for theft. Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; Floyd J. Lofton, Judge; affirmed. Greene Law Offices, by: Bill Luppen, for appellant. Steve Clark, Att'y Gen., by: Clint Miller, Asst. Att'y Gen., for appellee. DARRELL HICKMAN, Justice. This iS the second appeal in *Dudley, J., not participating.
2 HENSON V. STATE [300 Cite as 300 Ark. 1 (1989) this case. In Henson v. State, 296 Ark. 472, 757 S.W.2d 560 (1988), we reversed the appellant's convictions for aggravated robbery and theft of property because the trial judge failed to give an instruction on the lesser included offense of robbery. On retrial, Henson was convicted of theft of property. [1, 2] On appeal the appellant argues the trial court erred in not granting his motion for directed verdict because there was no substantial evidence to support his conviction for theft of property. A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Hill v. State, 299 Ark. 327, 773 S.W.2d 424 (1989). Substantial evidence is that which compels a conclusion one way or the other with reasonable certainty. Gardner v. State, 296 Ark. 41, 754 S.W.2d 518 (1988). There was sufficient evidence to support the appellant's conviction for theft. [3] The manager of the Sweden Creme testified that the appellant came to the Sweden Creme asking for directions to another business. He later found the appellant crouched down at the safe. The appellant jumped up and said, "You've caught me. Here's the money." He then put his hand in his jacket, and the manager thought he had a gun. Then the appellant fled. The manager testified that he knew there was between $700 and $800 in the money bag the appellant took from the safe because he had put that amount in the bag. The appellant argues the testimony was speculative in that the proof did not show over $200 was taken. We find the argument meritless. Affirmed. DUDLEY, J., not participating.
You are being directed to the most recent version of the statute which may not be the version considered at the time of the judgment.