Utley v. State, 366 Ark. 514

237 S.W.3d 27 (2006) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · June 1, 2006 · No. CR 05-1400

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed Charles W. Utley's conviction for negligent homicide arising from a collision involving his garbage truck. The court held that substantial evidence supported the conviction, including evidence that Utley's truck crossed the center line, continued in the opposing lane, and failed to brake or swerve before striking the victim's vehicle.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Jim Gunter
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
June 1, 2006
Docket number
CR 05-1400
Procedural posture
Utley was convicted by a jury of negligent homicide and sentenced to one year in county jail and a $1,000 fine. The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed. The Supreme Court of Arkansas granted the State's petition for review and reviewed the case as though it had originally been filed there.
Standard of review
On a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, the court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and considers only evidence supporting the verdict. A conviction is affirmed if supported by substantial evidence, meaning evidence of sufficient force and character to compel a conclusion without speculation or conjecture. Following review of a court of appeals decision, the Supreme Court reviews the case as though it originally had been filed in that court.
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Charles W. Utley v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureevidencestandard of reviewappellate procedure

Practice areas

criminal lawappellate lawevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether substantial evidence supported Utley's conviction for negligent homicide.
  2. Whether the State proved that Utley acted negligently within the meaning of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-202(4), including that his failure to perceive a substantial and unjustifiable risk was a gross deviation from the reasonable-person standard.

Holdings

  1. Substantial evidence supported Utley's conviction because the evidence showed that he drove a large garbage truck across the center line, remained in the wrong lane for 130 to 150 feet, and made no apparent effort to brake or swerve before the collisions.
  2. The circumstantial evidence was sufficient because it was consistent with guilt and no reasonable contrary hypothesis was offered by Utley or supported by the evidence.

Key quotations

A person driving a garbage truck around a curve and on a bridge should be aware that driving on the wrong side of the road presents a substantial and unjustifiable risk that he might hit a car traveling in the opposite direction and kill someone in that car. (30)
The circumstantial evidence in this case is consistent with the hypothesis of guilt, and no reasonable hypothesis to the contrary was either offered by Utley or supported by the evidence. (30)

Factual background

Utley was driving a loaded garbage truck on Highway 61 near Blytheville when his truck crossed the center line into oncoming traffic, struck Brent Young's vehicle, and continued in the wrong lane for approximately 130 to 150 feet before colliding with W.R. Perdue's pickup truck. Perdue was killed in the collision. Investigating officers found collision marks and vehicle positions in the northbound lane, with no evidence that Utley braked, swerved, or otherwise attempted to avoid either collision.

Procedural history

A jury convicted Utley of negligent homicide arising from a fatal traffic collision. The circuit court imposed a one-year jail sentence and $1,000 fine. The court of appeals reversed the conviction for insufficient evidence, and the Supreme Court of Arkansas granted review and affirmed the conviction.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…