JONES V. STATE Aim.] Cite as 269 Ark. 119 (1980) 119 James Allen JONES v. STATE of Arkansas CR 80-10 598 S.W. 2d 748 Supreme Court of Arkansas Opinion delivered May 27, 1980 1. TRIALS — WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE — CREDIBILITY OF WITNESSES. — The weight of the evidence and the credibility of a witness are matters for the jury and not for the court. 2. CRIMINAL LAW — TEST OF JURY VERDICT — SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE. — The test of whether a jury verdict should stand or fall in a criminal case is whether there is substantial evidence to support the decision. 3. EVIDENCE — SUBSTANTIAL EVIDENCE — DEFINITION. — Substantial evidence is evidence that is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable and material certainty and precision, compel a conclusion one way or the other, forcing or inducing the mind to pass beyond a suspicion or conjecture. Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court, First Division, Jack Holt, Jr., Special Judge; affirmed. John W. Achor, Public Defender, by: Theodore Holder, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant. Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Catherine Anderson, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee. DARREU. HICKMAN, Justice. James Allen Jones was convicted of aggravated robbery and attempted capital murder and sentenced to a total of sixty years imprisonment. On appeal he alleges only one error: The evidence was inadequate for a rational trier of fact to have found the appellant guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. We find that there was substantial evidence to support the finding by the jury and affirm his conviction. This was simply a case of the word of the victim against that of Jones and several alibi witnesses. Willeene Iheme, an employee of Mr. Jay's Liquor Store on High Street in Little
JONES V. STATE 120 Cite as 260 Ark. 119 (1980) [269 Rock, Arkansas, identified Jones as the person who came into the liquor store, pulled a gun on her, shot her and robbed the store. Jones denied he was that person and called several alibi witnesses. The jury chose to believe Iheme who testified she had an opportunity to view Jones for ten or twelve minutes. The weight of the evidence and the credibility of a witness are matters for the jury and not for this court. Chaviers v. State, 267 Ark. 6, 588 S.W. 2d 434 (1979); Thomas v. State, 266 Ark. 162, 583 S.W. 2d 32 (1979). The appellant relies' upon the case of Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307, 61 L. Ed. 2d 560 (1979) in his argument of error. In that case the United States Supreme Court held that one who applies to a federal court for habeas corpus relief is entitled to it "if it is found that upon the record adduced at the trial no rational trier of fact could have found proof of guilt beyond a reasonable doubt." We do not find that the language in the Jackson case requires us to abandon our decisions regarding the test of whether a jury verdict should stand in a criminal case. There must be substantial evidence to support such a decision. Hutcherson v.State, 262 Ark. 535, 558 S.W. 2d 156 (1977). In the case of Pickens-Bond Const. Co. v. Case, 266 Ark. 323, 584 S.W. 2d 21 (1979), we discussed what substantial evidence is. We said: Substantial evidence has been defined as 'evidence that is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable and material certainty and precision, compel a conclusion one way or the other. It must force or induce the mind to pass beyond a suspicion or conjecture.' Ford on Evidence, Vol. 4, § 549, page 2760. Substantial evidence has also been defined as 'evidence furnishing a substantial basis of fact from which the fact in issue can reasonably be inferred; and the test is not satisfied by evidence which merely created a suspicion or which amounts to no more than a scintilla or which gives equal support to inconsistent inferences.' Wigmore on Evidence, Vol. IX, 3rd ed. § 2494, footnote at page 300. See also Tigue v. Caddo Minerals Co., 253 Ark. 1140, 491 S.W. 2d 574; Goaz v. Central Ark. Dev. Council, 254 Ark. 694, 496 S.W. 2d 388.
ARK.] 121 In the case before us, it was for the jury to decide if the victim or the appellant and his witnesses were telling the truth. The jury chose to believe Iheme and, therefore, the question to us is whether her estimony is substantial evidence. It is. Affirmed. HOLT, 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.