ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
JOHN B. ROBBINS, JUDGE
MARCUS EUGENE BLUE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
JUNE 13, 2007
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
FIFTH DIVISION, [NO. CR2006-115]
HONORABLE WILLARD PROCTOR,
Appellant Marcus Blue was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, theft of
property, kidnapping, and an enhancement for possessing a firearm. He was convicted by a jury
in Pulaski County Circuit Court. On appeal, appellant argues that the aggravated robbery
convictions are not supported by sufficient evidence of his intent; and that the trial court abused
its discretion in allowing the State to enter a nine-millimeter handgun into evidence. After
consideration of this appeal under the proper standards, we affirm.
We first consider the sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument on appeal, as we must. A
motion for a directed verdict at a jury trial is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. See
Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1 (2004); Graham v. State, 365 Ark. 274, S.W.3d (2006). When a
defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that led to a conviction, the evidence is
viewed in the light most favorable to the State. See Gamble v. State, 351 Ark. 541, 95 S.W.3d
755 (2003). Only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. Id. The test for
determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial
evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id.
The State charged appellant with aggravated robbery, which required proof that appellant
robbed the victims while armed with a deadly weapon or that he robbed them while
representing by word or conduct that he was so armed. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-103 (Repl.
2006). “Robbery” as charged in this instance required proof that appellant used force or threat
of force with the purpose to commit theft. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-101 (Repl. 2006).
Appellant’s counsel moved for directed verdict in this trial challengin