ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, CHIEF JUDGE
DALLAS GENE ROY
STATE OF ARKANSAS
May 2, 2007
A P P E A L
F R O M T H E
I N D E P E N D E N C E C O U N T Y
HON. JOHN DAN KEMP, JR.
The appellant in this first-degree murder case admitted at his bench trial that he shot
the decedent five times and killed him, but asserted it was justifiably done in self-defense. The
trial court found him guilty and sentenced him to imprisonment for a term of thirty-five
years. On appeal, he argues that the evidence is not sufficient to show he acted purposefully,
that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a continuance, and that the trial court
erroneously sustained two hearsay objections raised at trial. We affirm.
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether
the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Garner v. State,
355 Ark. 82, 131 S.W.3d 734 (2003). Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to
compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. In
determining whether the evidence is substantial, we view the evidence in the light most
favorable to the verdict and consider only the evidence supporting the verdict. Id.
Here, the evidence is plainly sufficient to support the conviction. There was evidence
that appellant and the decedent were intoxicated and had been arguing on the night in
question, that appellant threatened to shoot decedent, that appellant left decedent’s home, and
that appellant returned. The appellant himself admitted that he emptied a nine-shot revolver
at decedent, hitting him five times in the region of the head and neck. The trial court was
not required to believe appellant’s testimony that decedent attacked him. See, e.g., Thomas
v. State, 266 Ark. 162, 583 S.W.2d 32 (1979).
With regard to appellant’s assertion that the t