ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
November 15, 2006
APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI
C O U N T Y C I R C U I T C O U R T ,
HON. CINDY GRACE THYER,
The appellant was convicted of manslaughter and failure to stop and render aid. On
appeal, he argues that there is no substantial evidence to support his convictions. We affirm.
Appellant’s motions for directed verdict on both charges were denied. A motion for
a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Barr v. State, 336 Ark.
220, 984 S.W.2d 792 (1999). A directed-verdict motion is properly denied if the verdict is
supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id. Substantial evidence is
evidence of sufficient certainty and precision to compel a conclusion one way or another and
pass beyond mere suspicion or conjecture. Britt v. State, 344 Ark. 13, 38 S.W.3d 363 (2001).
On appeal, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and consider
only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id.
Appellant first argues that there is no substantial evidence to support his manslaughter
conviction. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-104(a)(3) (Repl. 2006), a person commits
manslaughter if he recklessly causes the death of another person. A person acts recklessly
with respect to attendant circumstances or a result of his conduct when he consciously
disregards a substantial and unjustifiable risk that the circumstances exist or the result will
occur; the risk must be of a nature and degree that disregard thereof constitutes a gross
deviation from the standard of care that a reasonable person would observe in the actor's
situation. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202(3) (Repl. 2006).
Viewing the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the appellee, the
record shows that appellant struck a vehicle from behind at approxim