424 PHARR V. STATE [246 HOWARD K. PHARR V. STATE OF ARKANSAS 5-405 438 S.W. 2d 461
Opinion Delivered March 24, 1969 1. Criminal Law—Appeal & Error—Reasonable Doubt.—Issue of reasonable doubt does not arise on appeal, for although the jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, there is no requirement that the Supreme Court be similarly persuaded by the proof. 2. Criminal Law—Appeal & Error—Weight of Evidence to Sustain Verdict.—On appeal from a conviction, the test is that of substantial evidence, and if the verdict is sup p orted by such proof, the Supreme Court is not at liberty to disturb the conviction, even though it might think it to be against the weight of the evidence. 3. Larceny—Theft by Bailee—Weight & Sufficiency of Evidence. —In a prosecution for theft by bailee, proof held abundantly sufficient to sustain the conviction.
ARK.] PHARR V. STATE 425 Appeal from Miller Circuit Court; T47• H. Arnold, III, Judge; affirmed. John 0. Moore for appellant. Joe Purcell, Atty. Gen. and Don Langston, Asst. Atty. Gen. for appellee. GEORGE ROSE SMITH, Justice. The appellant, tried before a jury, appeals from a judgment sentencing him to three years imprisonment for having taken $209.57 that bad come into his possession as an employee of L. F. Snodgrass, the operator of a service station in Texarkana. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-3927 (Repl. 1964). Pharr contends only tbat the evidence is not sufficient to support the conviction. On the night of the crime, August 8, 1968, Pharr .was in his second week as the night attendant at the station, working alone on a 12-hour shift that began at 6:00 p.m. Snodgrass bad assigned a separate drawer in the cash register to each of his employees, providing each man with a key to his assigned drawer. Every day when Snodgrass checked out the receipts he put $50 in each man's drawer to enable him to begin business on his shift. At about 4:00 on the night in question Snodgrass was called by telephone to the station. The police had also been summoned, because a passing prospective customer bad found tbe station open and unattended. A day attendant bad apparently forgotten to take his drawer key with him; it was still in the lock. Both that drawer and Pharr's drawer were empty, except for a few cents. Snodgrass determined from the cash register tapes and the credit card slips that about $209 was missing. During the same night police officers .in the city of Hope, about 32 miles from Texarkana, saw a man
426 PHAER V. STATE [246 that proved to be Pharr arrive in an out-of-town taxicab and alight at a motel. Finding tbe motel full, Pharr asked the officers to assist him in obtaining a room for the night. As Pharr appeared to be drunk, the officers took him , to the police station, where a test confirmed his intoxication. Pharr was booked and was found to have $183.13 in bis possession, of which at least $100 was in silver. The next day Pharr, who still showed signs of intoxication, was turned over to the Texarkana police. Snodgrass and officers from both cities testified a.t the trial, narrating the facts essentially as we have summarized them. We find the proof abündantly -sufficient- to support the conviction. The jury was warranted in believing from the proof that Pharr bad taken the money from both cash drawers, had left the station unattended without notifying his employer, and had embarked upon an apparently pointless trip to Hope to spend the night. When Pharr was arrested be was still in possession of almost all the missing money. At least $100 of it was in silver, which in itself is enough to arouse suspicion. Absent an eyewitness, the State's proof is fully as strong as could be expected in such a case. The appellant hinges his argument principally upon the matter of reasonable doubt. That issue does not -arise on appeal, for as we said in Graves v. State, 236 Ark. 936, 370 S.W. 2d 806 (1963) : "The jury must be convinced beyond a reasonable doubt, but there is no requirement that the members of this court be similarly persuaded by the proof. Here the test is that. of substantial evidence. If the verdict is supported by such proof we are not at liberty to disturb the conviction, even though we might think it to be against the weight of the evidence." In tbe case at hand we hardly see how the verdict could have been other than that of guilty. Affirmed.
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.