SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR07-96
ANDRE PETER DUNN,
APPELLANT,
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
Opinion Delivered October 4, 2007
APPEAL FROM THE COLUMBIA
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CR03-188-5,
HON. LARRY CHANDLER, JUDGE,
AFFIRMED.
JIM HANNAH, Chief Justice
Appellant Andre Peter Dunn was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to
a term of life imprisonment. For reversal, Dunn argues that the circuit court erred in finding
that he lacked standing to object to a search of the decedent’s apartment. He contends that
the search violated his constitutional rights pursuant to the Fourth Amendment of the United
States Constitution and Article 2, § 15 of the Arkansas Constitution. Dunn also contends
that the circuit court erred when it allowed into evidence results of luminol testing
conducted at the apartment. Finally, Dunn argues that the circuit court erred in denying his
motion for directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence at trial to support his
conviction. As this is a criminal appeal in which a sentence of life imprisonment has been
imposed, our jurisdiction is pursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 1-2(a)(2). We find no error and,
accordingly, we affirm.
Dunn argues that there was insufficient evidence to sustain his conviction for first-
-2-
CR08-96
degree murder. While the sufficiency-of-the-evidence argument was not Dunn’s first point
on appeal, due to double-jeopardy concerns, we review the issue before reaching other issues
on appeal. See Isom v. State, 356 Ark. 156, 148 S.W.3d 257 (2004). In reviewing a challenge
to the sufficiency of the evidence, we determine whether the verdict is supported by
substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Malone v. State, 364 Ark. 256, 217 S.W.3d 810
(2005). Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with
reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resorting to
speculation or conjecture. Tillman v. State, 364 Ark. 143, 217 S.W.3d 773 (2005).
Circumstantial evidence may