Ark. Code Ann. § 5-12-103 (2026)

Research References

ALR.

Dog as deadly or dangerous weapon for purposes of statutes aggravating offenses such as assault and robbery. 124 A.L.R.5th 657.

Robbery: Identification of victim as person named in indictment or information. 4 A.L.R.6th 577.

Parts of Human Body, other than Feet, as Deadly or Dangerous Weapons or Instrumentalities for Purposes of Statutes Aggravating Offenses such as Assault and Robbery. 67 A.L.R.6th 103.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Survey of Arkansas Law, Criminal Law, 1 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 153.

Legislative Survey, Criminal Law, 4 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 583.

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

Although this section contains a mandatory minimum sentence with a provision prohibiting the suspension of execution of sentence, it is not an unconstitutional usurpation of judicial powers; the imposition of sentence is mandatory and the judge is bound to execute the sentence even where the jury recommends partial suspension. Hill v. State, 276 Ark. 300, 634 S.W.2d 120 (1982).

In General.

Section has redefined robbery so that focus of aggravated robbery has shifted from the taking of property to threat of physical harm to victim; one consequence of definition is that offense is complete when physical force is threatened and no transfer of property need take place. Birchett v. State, 294 Ark. 176, 741 S.W.2d 267 (1987).

Accomplice.

The trial court properly submitted the issue of the accomplice status of a witness to the jury where the witness' status as an accomplice was clearly disputed. Jones v. State, 15 Ark. App. 283, 695 S.W.2d 386 (1985).

Although defendant never actually possessed the gun, he was liable as an accomplice because he assisted and actively participated in the crime. Crutchfield v. State, 306 Ark. 97, 812 S.W.2d 459 (1991).

Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for directed verdict as there was sufficient evidence to support defendant's conviction of the underlying felony, aggravated robbery, and capital-murder, after eliminating the accomplice testimony; other corroborating evidence demonstrated that defendant had the purpose of committing theft with the use of physical force, was armed with a deadly weapon, and caused the death of the victim and, further, a doctor testified that the victim died from a gunshot wound. Gardner v. State, 364 Ark. 506, 221 S.W.3d 339 (2006).

Sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions as an accomplice to theft of property and aggravated robbery, pursuant to this section, because defendant was present during the crime, the state established a substantial association between defendant and codefendant, and, based on those linking facts, it was reasonable for the jury to conclude that defendant assisted her codefendant by finding the victim, setting up a meeting, leading the victim to a remote location, assuring the victim would have a substantial amount of cash, moving to the backseat of the car during the robbery, and by encouraging the victim to give codefendant the cash. Ramsey v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 836, 378 S.W.3d 797 (2010).

There was sufficient evidence tending to connect defendant to an aggravated robbery and thus to corroborate accomplice testimony because surveillance video established the commission of the crime and an officer testified that defendant matched the description of a robber in the video based on his height and that the officer confirmed the truth of identifying information from a non-accomplice. Smith v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 534, 423 S.W.3d 624 (2012).

Evidence was sufficient to support convictions for aggravated robbery and capital murder because defendant's intent was inferred from the actions of his accomplice; defendant's statement to police provided direct evidence of the accomplice's intent to commit an aggravated robbery, and his account of how the accomplice murdered the victim by shooting her in the forehead was substantial evidence of causing the death of a person under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. There was ample proof of defendant's participation as he accompanied others to the victim's residence, persuaded her to open the door, helped search the residence, and collected and kept his own share of the property that was stolen. Conway v. State, 2016 Ark. 7, 479 S.W.3d 1 (2016).

There was sufficient evidence that defendant was an accomplice to the crimes of aggravated robbery and capital murder as defendant admitted that he and the codefendants sat in a car planning the theft of beer from a gas station and convenience store and surveillance videos showed that defendant and a codefendant rushed into the store together, that codefendant shot the store clerk, and that defendant attempted to open the cash register, appeared to look around for something to steal, and searched the victim's pockets before fleeing. Williams v. State, 2017 Ark. 287, 528 S.W.3d 839 (2017).

In a case where defendant was convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery, there was sufficient evidence presented to corroborate the accomplice's testimony because defendant told a detective he was at the store on the date of the robbery; surveillance tapes showed defendant, co-defendant, and the accomplice in the store at the same time as the victim, leaving the store immediately after the victim, and leaving the parking lot right behind the victim; defendant's mother testified that the vehicle police were searching for in connection with the aggravated robberies belonged to defendant; and, at trial, the victim's sister identified defendant as the person who committed the aggravated robberies with co-defendant. Foster v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 63, 510 S.W.3d 782 (2017).

Because the status of the driver of the car and the juvenile who gave directions to the victim's house as accomplices was a mixed question of law and fact, the trial court properly did not instruct the jury that they were accomplices as a matter of law as agreeing to drive defendant and the accomplice to the victim's house with no questions asked did not conclusively show that the driver knew about or participated in the robbery or battery; it was the role of the jury to determine whether the juvenile had to have known that the robbery and battery were about to occur; and no testimony showed beyond dispute that either the driver or the juvenile knew of defendant's plan to rob the victim or that they encouraged him to shoot the victim. West v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 416, 530 S.W.3d 355 (2017).

Substantial evidence supported defendant's convictions as an accomplice to first-degree murder and aggravated robbery. Defendant was in the proximity of the crime; a video put defendant inside the victim's home shortly before the video tended to establish the victim had been killed; and he had the opportunity to aid in the commission of the crime in that he returned quicky to the residence after the other party entered, using his shirt to open the door, and subsequently ran from the house carrying the victim's bag. Jackson v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 330, 552 S.W.3d 55 (2018).

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of aggravated robbery either as a principal or as an accomplice because defendant's boyfriend told her they were going to pick up the victim and that he intended to beat him up and take anything that the victim had on him; despite knowing the boyfriend's purpose, defendant still agreed to drive him; substantial corroborating evidence connecting defendant to the crime included two interviews she gave to the police and her written statement, which were admitted at trial; and the victim's death made the offense an aggravated robbery regardless of her knowledge of whether a gun might be used. Vaughan v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 439, 555 S.W.3d 922 (2018).

Denying defendant's motion for directed verdict on the capital felony murder and aggravated robbery charges was not error where the State presented evidence that two people were involved in the crime, the vehicle used in the crime belonged to defendant's girlfriend, and a handgun that forensically matched the bullets and shell casings found at the crime scene as well as a nearly empty bottle of numerically related whiskey were found in defendant's apartment. The jury was free to conclude that defendant was the shooter or the shooter's accomplice.. Finley v. State, 2019 Ark. 336, 587 S.W.3d 223 (2019).

Evidence was insufficient to support defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery and first-degree felony murder because there was no evidence that the victim was the victim of an intended theft apart from the accomplice's testimony. The State showed only that defendant was with the accomplice and another alleged participant an hour before the victim died and that defendant was with another person in a crowd of gawkers at the location where the victim died. Clark v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 455, 588 S.W.3d 64 (2019).

Conspiracy.

Defendant committed an overt act in furtherance of a conspiracy to commit kidnapping, aggravated robbery, theft of property, and aggravated residential burglary because he took another person to his residence and showed the person the inside of the premises, discussed how to break in the residence and how to subdue his wife, and identified the property to be taken from the residence. Winkler v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 704, 425 S.W.3d 808 (2012).

Double Jeopardy.

The acquittal of a defendant on a charge of willful murder in the course of an armed robbery held to prevent a subsequent trial of the defendant on a charge of armed robbery arising from the same set of facts under the constitutional guarantees against double jeopardy. Turner v. Arkansas, 407 U.S. 366, 92 S. Ct. 2096, 32 L. Ed. 2d 798 (1972) (decision under prior law).

Neither robbery nor battery in the first degree is a continuing course of conduct so that defendant, who entered beauty shop, robbed two people and shot one of them, could be convicted of two counts of aggravated robbery and one count of battery in the first degree. Britt v. State, 261 Ark. 488, 549 S.W.2d 84 (1977).

The offenses of aggravated robbery and theft of property are separate and distinct and not dependent upon the same evidence to support the convictions; accordingly, defendant's conviction on both charges did not subject him to double jeopardy. Higgins v. State, 270 Ark. 19, 603 S.W.2d 401 (1980).

Where the first impulse setting off a course of conduct, the aggravated robbery, occurred when defendant, armed with a deadly weapon, approached victim with hand outstretched and, when victim refused to willingly turn over her purse, the second impulse, the impulse to use the weapon to overcome her resistance, was instituted, two separate offenses were committed, each commencing at a distinct point in time as the result of a separate impulse, and defendant could be convicted and sentenced for both offenses. Rowe v. State, 271 Ark. 20, 607 S.W.2d 657 (1980), cert. denied, Rowe v. Arkansas, 450 U.S. 1043, 101 S. Ct. 1764 (1981).

Where a defendant is convicted of both aggravated robbery and first degree battery, the convictions on both counts do not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy since one can commit aggravated robbery merely by committing robbery and being armed with a deadly weapon or representing that one is so armed, while to commit first-degree battery one must actually inflict serious injury. Foster v. State, 275 Ark. 427, 631 S.W.2d 7 (1982).

The elements of the statutory definitions of first-degree battery and aggravated robbery are different; therefore, convictions for both crimes are valid when obtained under those subsections. Thomas v. State, 280 Ark. 593, 660 S.W.2d 169 (1983).

Where the same proof was required for each of two counts of aggravated robbery involving the same victim, the entry of conviction on both counts was prohibited. Mitchell v. State, 281 Ark. 112, 661 S.W.2d 390 (1983).

The double jeopardy clause and subsection (a) and subdivision (b)(1) of § 5-1-110 did not preclude the defendant's convictions of both attempted first degree murder and aggravated robbery where the defendant held the first victim at gunpoint and examined her jewelry with the purpose of committing a theft, and then he shot the second victim. Kinsey v. State, 290 Ark. 4, 716 S.W.2d 188 (1986).

Aggravated robbery is not already an “enhancement provision” applied to robbery and imposed for the use of a deadly weapon, so “enhancement” under § 16-90-121 for the same use of the same deadly weapon does not subject a defendant to “double jeopardy”. Crespo v. State, 30 Ark. App. 12, 780 S.W.2d 592 (1989).

Trial court did not err in determining that consecutive sentencing for aggravated robbery, under subdivision (a)(1) of this section, first-degree terroristic threatening, § 5-13-301(a)(1)(A), and second-degree battery, § 5-13-202(a)(2), did not violate the prohibition against double jeopardy in Ark. Const. Art. 2, § 8 and the Fifth Amendment because neither first-degree terroristic threatening nor second-degree battery was a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery since both crimes required proof of additional facts not required by aggravated robbery; the offense of first-degree terroristic threatening requires the elements of threatening to cause the death of the victim and the purpose of terrorizing the victim, and a conviction for second-degree battery requires proof of purposely causing physical injury to the victim. Walker v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 61, 389 S.W.3d 10 (2012).

Elements.

Ownership is not a necessary element of proof for aggravated robbery; the aggravated robbery is complete with the threat of physical harm and the intent to commit theft. Mitchell v. State, 281 Ark. 112, 661 S.W.2d 390 (1983); McKinzy v. State, 313 Ark. 334, 853 S.W.2d 888 (1993); Lilly v. State, 300 Ark. 53, 776 S.W.2d 347 (1989); Wilford v. State, 300 Ark. 185, 777 S.W.2d 855 (1989).

Defendant's conduct fitted statutory definition of aggravated robbery in that he was in store for the purpose of committing theft and he held a gun on the employees, thereby threatening to employ physical force; the fact that the crime was not successful is of no consequence since nothing need be taken from the victim to sustain an aggravated robbery conviction. Andrews v. State, 283 Ark. 297, 675 S.W.2d 636 (1984).

Where the defendant held the victim at gunpoint while he inspected her jewelry, the jury was justified in concluding that the defendant intended to commit theft. Kinsey v. State, 290 Ark. 4, 716 S.W.2d 188 (1986).

Whether the defendant took or exercised unauthorized control over the officer's pistol with the purpose of depriving the owner thereof was a question of fact. Graham v. State, 290 Ark. 107, 717 S.W.2d 203 (1986).

Battery in the first degree is distinguishable from aggravated robbery in that (1) the battery offense requires serious physical injury to another, while aggravated robbery does not, and (2) aggravated robbery requires the purpose of committing robbery while being armed with a deadly weapon, or the representation that one is so armed, while first-degree battery, by statutory definition, requires neither of these two elements. Consequently, defendant can be prosecuted for both offenses. Robinson v. Lockhart, 823 F.2d 210 (8th Cir. 1987).

Where the restraint exceeds that which necessarily accompanies the crime of aggravated robbery, the robber is also subject to prosecution for kidnapping. Frensley v. State, 291 Ark. 268, 724 S.W.2d 165 (1987).

Aggravated robbery is not a continuing offense. Rhodes v. State, 293 Ark. 211, 736 S.W.2d 284 (1987).

Defendant committed aggravated robbery offense when he entered trailer and announced his intent to rob victims; subsequent actions constituted a separate offense, viz., aggravated assault. Birchett v. State, 294 Ark. 176, 741 S.W.2d 267 (1987).

Aggravated robbery and aggravated assault, arising from the same incident, overlap. Bishop v. State, 294 Ark. 303, 742 S.W.2d 911 (1988), overruled in part, Matthews v. State, 2009 Ark. 321, 319 S.W.3d 266 (2009).

One can commit aggravated robbery by committing robbery and being armed with a deadly weapon, or by representing that one is armed with a deadly weapon. Lewis v. State, 299 Ark. 310, 771 S.W.2d 773 (1989).

The only reasonable inference to be drawn was that defendant intended to take property from the victim where he approached the victim and said, “This is a robbery,” appeared to have a pistol in his pocket and had it pointed at her, and when she screamed for help, he ran away. Fletcher v. State, 306 Ark. 541, 816 S.W.2d 592 (1991).

Nothing in § 5-12-102 or this section requires that the representation that the offender is armed must be made to the victim of the theft. Lowe v. State, 36 Ark. App. 85, 819 S.W.2d 23 (1991).

Robbery does not require that each victim, or even one victim, be deprived of property, but has been redefined by shifting the emphasis from the taking of property to the threat, express or implied, of physical harm to the victim. Harris v. State, 308 Ark. 150, 823 S.W.2d 860 (1992).

A person commits aggravated robbery if, with the purpose of committing a theft, he employs or threatens to immediately employ physical force upon another, and he is armed with a deadly weapon. Bishop v. State, 310 Ark. 479, 839 S.W.2d 6 (1992).

One commits aggravated robbery by threatening or using force to take property from others, even if the property did not belong to the victims, and even if the robbery attempt was unsuccessful. McDaniel v. Norris, 38 F.3d 385 (8th Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 516 U.S. 826, 116 S. Ct. 92 (1995).

Trial court did not err in admitting testimony about the victim's subsequent death a month after the robbery because the evidence of the victim's death was clearly relevant to prove death or serious physical injury as an element of the offense of aggravated robbery, subdivision (2) of this section. Medlock v. State, 79 Ark. App. 447, 89 S.W.3d 357 (2002).

Trial court's application of Smith to an aggravated robbery charge and reduction of the conviction to robbery was erroneous because the state did not have to show that the firearm had been used as a firearm, and evidence that clearly showed that defendant employed or threatened to employ physical force while he was armed with a deadly weapon was sufficient for a conviction. Carter v. State, 360 Ark. 266, 200 S.W.3d 906 (2005), vacated, Carter v. Arkansas, 126 S. Ct. 65, 163 L. Ed. 2d 32 (U.S. 2005).

Evidence was sufficient to prove the theft element of aggravated robbery; evidence showed that defendant used physical force to at least temporarily deprive victim of her car, which was sufficient proof. Winston v. State, 368 Ark. 105, 243 S.W.3d 304 (2006).

In defendant's attempted capital murder case, the state presented substantial evidence of defendant's intent to commit theft because there was the victim's testimony, in which she stated that defendant told her that he was going to rob her, there was the fact that two twenty-dollar bills and some quarters were missing from the store after the attack, and there was also defendant's own videotaped statement in which he admitted to taking money from the cash register. Goodwin v. State, 373 Ark. 53, 281 S.W.3d 258 (2008).

Defendant was not required to point a gun at each of the several victims to a home invasion robbery in order to have committed aggravated robbery against each of them in violation of subdivisions (a)(1)-(3) of this section. His holding a gun to the heads of two of the victims was sufficient to instill fear in the remaining victims. Morris v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 12 (2011).

Although defendant shot the victim three times as the result of an inadvertent collision with the victim as the victim attempted to run, actual physical force was not required to convict defendant of aggravated robbery. His possession of a gun and his threat to employ the gun were sufficient to support his conviction under § 5-12-102 and this section. Ali v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 758 (2011).

Evidence.

Evidence held sufficient to support conviction. Arnold v. State, 233 Ark. 3, 342 S.W.2d 291 (1961); Radcliff v. State, 249 Ark. 1, 457 S.W.2d 847 (1970) (preceding decisions under prior law); Warren v. State, 261 Ark. 173, 547 S.W.2d 392 (1977); Lunon v. State, 264 Ark. 188, 569 S.W.2d 663 (1978); McDonald v. State, 266 Ark. 56, 582 S.W.2d 272 (1979); Duncan v. State, 267 Ark. 41, 588 S.W.2d 432 (1979); Ellis v. State, 267 Ark. 690, 590 S.W.2d 309 (Ct. App. 1979); Jones v. State, 269 Ark. 119, 598 S.W.2d 748 (1980); Beed v. State, 271 Ark. 526, 609 S.W.2d 898 (1980); Sanders v. State, 274 Ark. 525, 626 S.W.2d 366 (1982); Treats v. State, 280 Ark. 319, 657 S.W.2d 556 (1983); Davis v. State, 284 Ark. 557, 683 S.W.2d 926 (1985); Alfay v. State, 15 Ark. App. 32, 688 S.W.2d 951 (1985); Walker v. State, 287 Ark. 76, 696 S.W.2d 500 (1985); Johnson v. State, 287 Ark. 98, 696 S.W.2d 742 (1985); Treadway v. State, 287 Ark. 441, 700 S.W.2d 364 (1985); Robinson v. State, 291 Ark. 212, 723 S.W.2d 818 (1987); Jones v. State, 292 Ark. 183, 729 S.W.2d 10 (1987); Wilkins v. State, 292 Ark. 596, 731 S.W.2d 775 (1987); Robinson v. State, 293 Ark. 243, 737 S.W.2d 153 (1987); Allen v. State, 294 Ark. 209, 742 S.W.2d 886 (1988); Long v. State, 294 Ark. 362, 742 S.W.2d 942 (1988); Williams v. State, 295 Ark. 18, 746 S.W.2d 44 (1988); Lewis v. State, 295 Ark. 499, 749 S.W.2d 672 (1988); Wilson v. State, 25 Ark. App. 126, 753 S.W.2d 287 (1988); Lilly v. State, 300 Ark. 53, 776 S.W.2d 347 (1989); Wilford v. State, 300 Ark. 185, 777 S.W.2d 855 (1989); Beebe v. State, 301 Ark. 430, 784 S.W.2d 765 (1990); Hamm v. State, 304 Ark. 214, 800 S.W.2d 711 (1990); Crutchfield v. State, 306 Ark. 97, 812 S.W.2d 459 (1991); Beard v. State, 306 Ark. 546, 816 S.W.2d 860 (1991); Harris v. State, 308 Ark. 150, 823 S.W.2d 860 (1992); Brown v. State, 309 Ark. 503, 832 S.W.2d 477 (1992); Hardrick v. State, 47 Ark. App. 105, 885 S.W.2d 910 (1994); Boyd v. State, 54 Ark. App. 17, 922 S.W.2d 357 (1996); Jones v. State, 336 Ark. 191, 984 S.W.2d 432 (1999), appeal dismissed, — Ark. —, — S.W.3d —, 2000 Ark. LEXIS 148 (Mar. 16, 2000); Box v. State, 74 Ark. App. 82, 45 S.W.3d 415 (2001), aff'd in part, reversed in part, 348 Ark. 116, 71 S.W.3d 552 (2002).

Evidence held insufficient to prove him guilty of robbery beyond a reasonable doubt. Green v. State, 265 Ark. 179, 577 S.W.2d 586 (1979).

Evidence held sufficient to find that there was an immediate threat of death or serious physical injury to the prosecuting witness. Beed v. State, 271 Ark. 526, 609 S.W.2d 898 (1980).

Evidence held sufficient to establish intent to commit a theft. Johnson v. State, 276 Ark. 56, 632 S.W.2d 416 (1982).

On appeal from convictions for two counts of aggravated robbery, pursuant to subdivision (a)(1) of this section, one count of battery, and a firearm enhancement, defendant's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence was unsuccessful because the state presented sufficient proof of defendant's identity as one of two armed men who stole cough medicine from a pharmacy, and the state also presented sufficient evidence to establish his liability as an accomplice for all criminal acts in furtherance of that goal. Brown v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 826 (2009).

Evidence held insufficient to support conviction. Pridgett v. State, 276 Ark. 52, 631 S.W.2d 833 (1982); Nichols v. State, 280 Ark. 173, 655 S.W.2d 450 (1983); Bishop v. State, 294 Ark. 303, 742 S.W.2d 911 (1988), overruled in part, Matthews v. State, 2009 Ark. 321, 319 S.W.3d 266 (2009).

Evidence of an implied threat of physical force held sufficient to support conviction. Knight v. State, 277 Ark. 213, 640 S.W.2d 442 (1982).

In prosecution for aggravated robbery, it was prejudicial error to refuse to allow the defendant's mother and grandmother to testify during the guilt-innocence phase of the trial to the effect that under pressure the defendant “goes to pieces,” as purposeful intent is an essential element of aggravated robbery. Graham v. State, 290 Ark. 107, 717 S.W.2d 203 (1986).

Defendant's confession was not sufficiently corroborated to prove the crime of aggravated robbery. Trotter v. State, 290 Ark. 269, 719 S.W.2d 268 (1986), overruled, Smith v. State, 292 Ark. 162, 729 S.W.2d 5 (1987).

Evidence sufficient to support conviction as an accomplice. Campbell v. State, 294 Ark. 639, 746 S.W.2d 37 (1988).

The evidence was sufficient to establish that the threat of a deadly weapon was made immediately after the theft to resist apprehension or arrest, where the theft, flight, struggle, and apprehension were accomplished in a matter of minutes without any significant intervening event. Lowe v. State, 36 Ark. App. 85, 819 S.W.2d 23 (1991).

The instrumentality used to inflict fear is patently relevant to crimes of rape, kidnapping and aggravated robbery, all of which include an element of force for perpetration. Brooks v. State, 308 Ark. 660, 827 S.W.2d 119 (1992).

Knife found at crime site was relevant to corroborate the testimony of the victim concerning stabbings and no prejudice resulted to the defendant from its admission into evidence. Brooks v. State, 308 Ark. 660, 827 S.W.2d 119 (1992).

Display of a gun was sufficient threat to sustain a conviction for aggravated robbery. Robinson v. State, 317 Ark. 17, 875 S.W.2d 837 (1994).

Photo identification, followed by an eye-witness identification at trial, held sufficient. Davis v. State, 318 Ark. 212, 885 S.W.2d 292 (1994).

Even if the trial court had erred in admitting items seized in a motel room, the other evidence of defendant's guilt overwhelming supported the convictions for aggravated robbery and capital murder. Rockett v. State, 318 Ark. 831, 890 S.W.2d 235 (1994), overruled, MacKintrush v. State, 334 Ark. 390, 978 S.W.2d 293 (1998).

Although defendant was obliged to abort his robbery of a small store, the evidence of kidnapping, aggravated robbery, and attempted murder held sufficient. Durham v. State, 320 Ark. 689, 899 S.W.2d 470 (1995).

In a capital felony murder case, evidence, though circumstantial, was sufficient to support the jury's conclusion that the victim wore rings and that they were taken by the person who killed her. Martin v. State, 328 Ark. 420, 944 S.W.2d 512 (1997), overruled, State v. Bell, 329 Ark. 422, 948 S.W.2d 557 (1997).

Although codefendant gave varying statements about defendant's participation and the victim was unable to identify the defendant, the identification evidence held sufficient in view of the scientific evidence and the testimony of the codefendant. Wilson v. State, 332 Ark. 7, 962 S.W.2d 805 (1998).

Evidence was sufficient to show forcible compulsion where the defendant and his companions abducted the victim at gunpoint and subsequently coerced her to accompany him to various ATMs, to withdraw money, and to give such money to him. Williams v. State, 338 Ark. 97, 991 S.W.2d 565 (1999).

Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for aggravated robbery where the defendant knew that his associates contemplated a robbery he admitted that he arrived at the rest stop at which the crime occurred armed and loitered for about 30 minutes, he acknowledged that he was in the bathroom in which the crime occurred at the time the victim was shot, and he covered his head, fled with the group, and was later seen with a weapon. Stewart v. State, 338 Ark. 608, 999 S.W.2d 684 (1999).

Evidence, although circumstantial, was sufficient to convict defendant of aggravated robbery because (1) defendant's fingerprint was in the home; (2) defendant matched the victim's description of being a young, light-skinned, black male without facial hair; (3) a neighbor testified that the day before the robbery there was a strange burgundy car, which defendant was driving when he was arrested, parked outside the victim's home; and (4) on the night of the robbery, another neighbor saw defendant cut through the victim's yard and disappear. Medlock v. State, 79 Ark. App. 447, 89 S.W.3d 357 (2002).

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of aggravated robbery and theft where the record showed that after the victim was shot, the defendant removed money from the dead man's body, helped to hide the body, hid the dead man's truck, and threw the dead man's wallet and keys away. Grillot v. State, 353 Ark. 294, 107 S.W.3d 136 (2003).

In an armed robbery and theft prosecution, testimony of the driver of the getaway car that directly linked defendant to the robbery, the corroborating testimony of a store employee that defendant took money from, and that of an officer that defendant fled from after the getaway car crashed, was sufficient to convict defendant under § 16-89-111. Parker v. State, 355 Ark. 639, 144 S.W.3d 270 (2004).

Evidence was sufficient to establish that defendant caused the victim's death under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life where defendant (1) admitted pointing a loaded gun at one victim in the course of a robbery, (2) fired a gun at another unarmed victim from less than three feet away, (3) repeatedly threatened to shoot all three victims throughout the ordeal, (4) used a gun to shoot the victim at close range and admitted the shooting was intentional, and (5) not only cursed the victim as he died, but threatened the other victims and locked them in a room so he could get away. Porter v. State, 358 Ark. 403, 191 S.W.3d 531 (2004).

Jury could infer that defendant shot the victim in order to steal drugs and money from the victim, based on defendant's own account of what occurred; thus, there was substantial evidence that defendant shot and killed the victim during the course of, and in furtherance of, an aggravated robbery. Harper v. State, 359 Ark. 142, 194 S.W.3d 730 (2004).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's aggravated robbery conviction where defendant admitted to being in the vehicle when the crimes occurred, the evidence showed that he was the driver, defendant waited while an accomplice fired shots at the van's driver, and defendant retrieved the bank bag. Jefferson v. State, 359 Ark. 454, 198 S.W.3d 527 (2004).

State presented sufficient evidence to prove either robbery or aggravated robbery where the victim testified that defendant and his friends came to the victim's residence and, after duct-taping his mouth and arms, forced him at gunpoint to accompany them to defendant's home where defendant then took $ 2,040 cash that the victim had on his person; further, the victim maintained at trial that defendant and his friends continually beat him from the time they kidnapped him until they returned him to his home. Carter v. State, 360 Ark. 266, 200 S.W.3d 906 (2005), vacated, Carter v. Arkansas, 126 S. Ct. 65, 163 L. Ed. 2d 32 (U.S. 2005).

Victim's eyewitness identification testimony and the officers' identification testimony based on the surveillance tape and a still photograph was sufficient to sustain convictions of aggravated robbery and theft of property; moreover, the victim's testimony that she was fearful and believed defendant was armed, based on his pointing his jacket at her and insinuating that he had a gun, supported the weapon requirement under this section. Edwards v. State, 360 Ark. 413, 201 S.W.3d 909 (2005).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for aggravated robbery and to corroborate the accomplice's testimony where witnesses testified as to the role defendant played in the robbery and described his clothing and weapon, which were collected at the scene; further, defendant's jacket had blood stains on it and a hole corresponding to the location of a gunshot wound he received, and defendant was found hiding inside a dumpster near the site where his car became stuck in the mud. Flowers v. State, 92 Ark. App. 29, 210 S.W.3d 907 (2005).

In an aggravated robbery case, denial of a defendant's motion for directed verdict was proper where, although the victim was unsure about the identity of defendant as the second man involved in the robbery, there was substantial evidence that defendant participated in the robbery; the victim described two defendants' clothing, the differences between their ages, their being African-American, and the vehicle they fled in, which led the police to taking them into custody. Wingfield v. State, 363 Ark. 380, 214 S.W.3d 843 (2005).

Trial court did not err by denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict on his capital murder conviction because the evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of the underlying felony, aggravated robbery, even after eliminating the testimony of one of defendant's accomplices. Evidence showed that: (1) defendant had the purpose of committing a theft with the use of physical force, as he and three other individuals went to a witness's house to acquire ammunition for their firearm; (2) the fourth individual testified that defendant and three men arrived at his trailer where defendant displayed a gun, and that he provided ammunition for the gun; (3) a second witness, one of the three men who accompanied defendant, testified that he heard two gunshots fired after the two other men left the victim's apartment after the struggle between defendant and the victim ensued; and (4) the chief medical examiner testified that the victim died from a gunshot wound. Gardner v. State, 362 Ark. 413, 208 S.W.3d 774 (2006).

Where defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery and capital murder for killing a grocery store owner, the trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict because the jury did not have to resort to speculation and conjecture as it apparently believed testimony from defendant's four friends concerning his actions and admissions on the night the crimes were committed and the next day when he fled. Whitt v. State, 365 Ark. 580, 232 S.W.3d 459 (2006).

There was sufficient evidence to support a conviction where evidence showed that two murders were committed during a robbery, defendant made inculpatory statements regarding the robbery, the victims had a large amount of cash, and defendant made calls to their phone on the day of the shooting. Harris v. State, 366 Ark. 190, 234 S.W.3d 273 (2006).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery, residential burglary, and felony theft of property because an accomplice testified that he and defendant had a purpose of committing theft when they went to the victim's apartment, defendant used physical force upon the victim, defendant was armed with a deadly weapon, and a witness testified that she observed defendant carry out a television and load it into the car. Navarro v. State, 371 Ark. 179, 264 S.W.3d 530 (2007).

Defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery and theft were proper because defendant employed physical force upon the victim, admitted to stabbing the victim, and was armed with a deadly weapon. Further, the fact that defendant pawned the victim's tools and tried to sell other stolen items established a purpose to commit theft. Young v. State, 371 Ark. 393, 266 S.W.3d 744 (2007).

Substantial evidence indicated that defendant was armed with a deadly weapon for the purpose of committing theft, and defendant was part of a plan to take the victim's money; there did not have to be an actual transfer of property to take place for the offense of aggravated robbery to be complete, and defendant and another clearly followed through with the plan, whether or not they verbally acknowledged their agreement at the time the plan was conceived. Moore v. State, 372 Ark. 579, 279 S.W.3d 69 (2008).

Denial of defendant's motion for directed verdict on capital murder and aggravated murder charges under this section and §§ 5-10-101 and 5-12-102, was proper as the evidence showed that defendant held a pistol, a deadly weapon, and that he committed theft while armed with the pistol; the evidence also showed that he caused the death of the victim in immediate flight from the aggravated robbery under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Flowers v. State, 373 Ark. 119, 282 S.W.3d 790 (2008).

Sufficient evidence supported defendant's convictions for first-degree murder under § 5-10-102(a), and aggravated robbery under subsection (a) of this section, including the testimony of several witnesses who saw defendant with the victim's car, as well as the testimony of two witnesses who saw defendant drive the car under the bridge where the victim's body was found and return without the victim in the car. Defendant told one witness that he intended to kill the victim and steal his car, and after the murder he boasted about shooting the victim and showed two witnesses the bullet he found in the victim's car; the bullet he was carrying was consistent with the suspected murder weapon, and the victim's blood was found on his clothing. Boldin v. State, 373 Ark. 295, 283 S.W.3d 565 (2008).

Substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict that defendant committed aggravated robbery in that he robbed the victim of the contents of the cigar box and inflicted serious injury; the cigar box was nearly empty when found and the slip of paper the victim kept in the box was found in defendant's property taken when he was booked. Sales v. State, 374 Ark. 222, 289 S.W.3d 423 (2008), cert. denied, Sales v. Arkansas, — U.S. —, 129 S. Ct. 2000, 173 L. Ed. 2d 1098 (2009).

Defendant's convictions for two counts of aggravated robbery were proper under § 5-12-102(a) and subsection (a) of this section because a neighbor verified that one of the intruders had a gun; the victim told officers that the intruders hid their guns in the closet, where two guns were found; and both intruders were charged in the same instrument, implicating accomplice liability. That provided substantial evidence to support the finding that the intruders at minimum represented by word or conduct that they were armed as a threat in order to commit the theft. Hinton v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 341 (2010).

While there was no testimony that anyone saw defendant at the scene or with a gun, evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of aggravated robbery, under this section, and first-degree murder, under § 5-10-102(a)(1), as it showed defendant had access to a gun, the car defendant was driving that night was at the scene, and the victim's condition suggested a robbery. Bates v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 417 (2010).

Defendant's aggravated robbery conviction pursuant to this section was proper because a car theft victim's testimony that the victim got out of the victim's car when defendant indicated that defendant had a gun was sufficient to substantiate the conviction. Sartin v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 494 (2010).

Evidence was sufficient to support the jury's finding that defendant committed aggravated robbery where defendant was armed with a knife, used it to threaten to kill the victim, and then stole money from her and a medical clinic. Sweet v. State, 2011 Ark. 20, 370 S.W.3d 510 (2011).

Defendant's convictions for aggravated residential burglary in violation of § 5-39-204(a) and aggravated robbery in violation of subsection (a) of this section were appropriate because the state provided sufficient evidence to corroborate his accomplices' testimony; even eliminating the accomplice testimony, the remaining evidence presented independently established the crimes and tended to connect defendant with their commission. In part, witnesses testified about defendant being with the accomplices on the day of the crimes and the state also presented a witness's testimony that defendant had sold him the three shotguns that were identified as being the ones stolen from the victim. Tucker v. State, 2011 Ark. 144, 381 S.W.3d 1 (2011).

Evidence that defendant demanded money from a store employee while brandishing a firearm supported his conviction for aggravated robbery. Lambert v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 258 (2011).

Defendant's conviction for capital-felony murder under § 5-10-101(a)(1) and subdivision (a)(3) of this section was appropriate because the evidence was sufficient. The last number dialed on the victim's cellular phone was to a phone registered to defendant and a fellow prisoner testified that defendant confessed to selling drugs to the victim, robbing and shooting him, and then leaving him on the road. Dixon v. State, 2011 Ark. 450, 385 S.W.3d 164 (2011).

Defendant's convictions for first-degree murder and aggravated robbery, in violation of §§ 5-10-102(a) and 5-3-201 and subsection (a) of this section, were supported by sufficient evidence, as the evidence showed that defendant was armed with a deadly weapon for the purpose of committing the theft of a cab driver, that defendant threatened the driver, and that the driver was shot in the struggle over the gun. Garr v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 509 (2011).

Appellant's convictions for aggravated robbery, aggravated residential burglary, and misdemeanor fleeing were affirmed where a witness testified that appellant pointed a sawed-off shotgun at his head, which would necessarily constitute proof that appellant was “armed with a deadly weapon”; the testimony of one eyewitness was sufficient to sustain a conviction. Riley v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 511, 385 S.W.3d 355 (2011).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's aggravated robbery conviction because he brandished a weapon, which was a communicated threat, and it was done while defendant was essentially asking if the victim had anything of value. The fact that defendant did not actually take anything else from the victim while in possession of the firearm was not fatal to his conviction. Butler v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 708 (2011).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's convictions for capital murder and aggravated robbery because defendant drove his accomplice to the victim's house, defendant admitted to hitting the victim over the head, and the evidence illustrated he wanted to harm the victim because he did it again after he stated that the victim was not fazed. Additionally, the victim's wallet was taken from the house. Laswell v. State, 2012 Ark. 201, 404 S.W.3d 818 (2012).

There was sufficient evidence to sustain an aggravated robbery conviction under this section because there was a verbal representation in a note; there was no requirement that the threat of physical harm be made directly or indirectly, only that physical force be immediately threatened, however the threat was communicated. Walden v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 307, 419 S.W.3d 739 (2012).

Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict on an aggravated robbery charge, in violation of subdivisions (a)(1) and (2) of this section, because substantial evidence supported the conviction; according to defendant's own statement to the police, defendant participated in the planning of the robbery by driving accomplices around town in order to case possible bank targets. Nickelson v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 363, 417 S.W.3d 214 (2012), appeal dismissed, 2013 Ark. 252 (2013).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for capital murder and aggravated robbery because a witness's testimony corroborated that defendant was an accomplice to the aggravated robbery, defendant knew there was a large amount of marijuana at the home, a gun was used during the robbery, and the victim's death occurred during the robbery under circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life. Bradley v. State, 2013 Ark. 58, 426 S.W.3d 363 (2013).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain convictions for aggravated robbery and aggravated residential burglary because the victim testified that when defendant came into her house, he told her to give him her money and that he was going to kill her. Defendant had a paper bag over his right hand and his right hand was pointing directly at her stomach; she believed that there was a gun in the paper bag. Dobbins v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 269 (2013).

There was substantial evidence to support convictions for two aggravated-robbery counts based on accomplice liability where defendant was in a car moving away from the robbery scene, he was found with roughly the same amount of money that was stolen in the robbery, and he used a false name. Moreover, one of the vehicle's passengers was wearing clothing that matched the description of the perpetrator. Davis v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 658, 430 S.W.3d 190 (2013).

Evidence was sufficient to find defendant guilty of aggravated robbery and theft of property because, while the store's employees identified another person in the first photographic spread, they both identified him in a second spread and in court, the jury had before it witness testimony, a videotape, and photographs showing that defendant brought a backpack into the store, left it there, he possessed and used a gun, and his DNA was on a mouthwash bottle found in the backpack. Turner v. State, 2014 Ark. 415, 443 S.W.3d 535 (2014).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's aggravated-robbery conviction under subdivision (a)(3) of this section where although it was illegal for the victim to possess the marijuana, it clearly had value, was subject to possession, and thus, fell within the definition of property and property of another person as set forth in § 5-36-101. Gould v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 543, 444 S.W.3d 408 (2014).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery and theft of property because the State introduced crucial evidence through a witness that defendant confessed to committing the robbery and to using a .40-caliber pistol to do so; in addition to that direct evidence, the State introduced ample circumstantial evidence that tied defendant to the crime. Chatmon v. State, 2015 Ark. 28, 467 S.W.3d 731 (2015).

Trial court did not err in denying defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the aggravated-robbery offense as the State presented evidence that the victim suffered serious physical injury; as a result of the attack, the victim had little control over his right side, suffered partial memory loss, was confined to a wheelchair, and would require constant care for the rest of his life. Britt v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 456, 468 S.W.3d 285 (2015).

Evidence was sufficient for aggravated robbery, first-degree battery, and theft of property under $1,000 convictions since defendant's arguments all presented questions of fact and involved the credibility and weight of the evidence, which were matters for the jury to decide; the jury heard all of the evidence, and defense counsel was permitted to cross-examine the witnesses to point out the very weaknesses that defendant complained of on appeal. As to Facebook conversations, the appellate court was able to consider both properly and improperly admitted evidence on a sufficiency of the evidence review. Means v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 643, 476 S.W.3d 168 (2015).

Evidence was sufficient in relation to a carjacking to convict defendant of aggravated robbery and theft, and to enhance the sentence due to the use of a firearm during the robbery, because the victim testified that defendant approached the victim as she was about to get in her car and told her to move out of the way; when she did not immediately move away, defendant lifted his shirt, displaying the handle of a gun protruding from his pants; the victim thought defendant was going to pull out the gun, so she stepped back, and he entered her car and drove it away; the victim picked out defendant almost immediately from a photographic lineup; and the victim's unequivocal testimony identified defendant as the culprit. Davis v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 274, 493 S.W.3d 339 (2016).

Substantial evidence supported a guilty verdict for aggravated robbery and theft of property where a bank teller positively identified defendant as the robber, and he stated to the police that he had visited three banks, wore a mask, had a fake gun, and a teller at one bank threw money at him. Boyd v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 407, 500 S.W.3d 772 (2016).

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of aggravated robbery and first-degree battery because defendant, armed with a deadly weapon, along with the accomplice, forced his way into the victim's home and demanded marijuana, shot the victim when he did not produce marijuana, and stole a pair of the victim's shoes and a box of shotgun shells; the jury could conclude that a backpack and a cell phone belonged to defendant, or at least were used by him, and connected him with the shooting; and substantial evidence supported a determination that the juvenile was not an accomplice, that his testimony tended to connect defendant to the robbery and battery, and that his testimony independently established the commission of those crimes. West v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 416, 530 S.W.3d 355 (2017).

Substantial evidence supported the jury's finding that, while armed with a deadly weapon, defendant committed a robbery and committed aggravated robbery because according to defendant's detailed confession, he entered a bank with a handgun and demanded money; a teller testified that defendant pointed the gun at her and that she gave him a bag of money, and although she could not identify the masked robber, defendant identified himself as the perpetrator in his statement to the police. Hamilton v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 447, 526 S.W.3d 859 (2017).

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of aggravated robbery because the victim testified that she saw a gun in defendant's waistband and that defendant's hand was on the gun when he told her it was a robbery; the victim testified that she was scared, threw her hands in the air, and then gave money to defendant; and her fear was further manifested by her terrified demeanor on the phone with the 911 dispatcher and her trembling and tearful reaction when shown defendant's photo in a photo lineup of suspects; by telling the victim it was a robbery and holding his hand on a gun, defendant communicated a threat of imminent harm to the victim, and whether defendant verbally conveyed that he was going to harm the victim was irrelevant. Rockins v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 19, 541 S.W.3d 457 (2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's aggravated robbery conviction because the restaurant employee positively identified defendant, by his eyes, as the person that robbed the restaurant while wearing a mask and pointing a handgun at her, the next day a locksmith found a ski mask and gloves inside his dumpster that had not been there before, and DNA on the gloves matched defendant. Lacefield v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 481, 559 S.W.3d 311 (2018).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's aggravated-robbery conviction; the victim testified that defendant pointed a gun at him and threatened to kill him, and while defendant claimed that he did not have a gun, only a flashlight, and that he did not threaten to kill anyone, the jury chose to believe the victim. Davidson v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 632, 566 S.W.3d 151 (2018).

While the State's case against defendant for capital felony murder/aggravated robbery was premised on circumstantial evidence, testimony clearly corroborated an accomplice's testimony against defendant and the evidence was sufficient to support the jury's verdict even without the accomplice testimony; testimony from multiple witnesses demonstrated that three masked men entered a gas station convenience store, the man in red demanded money from the owner, shot him in the neck, and then turned his gun on an employee, shooting him in the face. Lawshea v. State, 2019 Ark. 68, 567 S.W.3d 853 (2019).

Where cross-examination of the victim at trial revealed that the State's exhibit of text messages between the defendant and victim was incomplete and that the victim had deleted some of the messages, the appellate court did not have to decide whether the circuit court erred in failing to strike the exhibit because any error that existed was harmless given the overwhelming evidence of defendant's guilt that remained. Farmer v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 148, 571 S.W.3d 78 (2019).

Substantial evidence supported an aggravated robbery conviction under an accomplice liability theory where a victim's testimony showed that defendant and an accomplice stole money from the victim, were armed with a deadly weapon, and inflicted death upon another victim. Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323, 588 S.W.3d 1 (2019).

Harmless Errror.

Although the search warrant was invalid with respect to the cigarettes, failure to suppress the cigarettes constituted harmless error. Excluding the cigarettes, the jury nevertheless had overwhelming evidence of defendant's commercial burglary and aggravated robbery offenses; in part, defendant was identified from surveillance video and a search of his vehicle revealed ammunition of the type used by the gun in the robberies, as well as a bandana that contained his DNA. Jemison v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 475, 588 S.W.3d 359 (2019).

Indictment or Information.

Court did not err in refusing to grant the defendant's motion for a directed verdict on the original allegation of aggravated robbery with a deadly weapon, and then permitting the state to amend the information to include the additional words of the statute that the defendant represented by word or conduct that he was so armed, in order to conform to the proof that the weapon used was in fact a BB pistol. Jones v. State, 275 Ark. 12, 627 S.W.2d 6 (1982).

Instructions.

Requested instruction that conviction in this state would not prevent defendant from being tried in another state for criminal acts performed within that state was properly refused. Thomas v. State, 262 Ark. 79, 553 S.W.2d 32 (1977).

Instruction that the minimum sentence for aggravated robbery was 10 years imprisonment and not 6 years was correct. Mayfield v. State, 293 Ark. 216, 736 S.W.2d 12 (Ark. 1987).

Where jury was entitled to believe defendant's assertion that she did not know her boyfriend was carrying a gun, while disbelieving her claim that she did not assist in the commission of the robbery, the trial court erred in refusing to give an instruction on robbery in defendant's trial for aggravated robbery. Waggle v. State, 50 Ark. App. 198, 901 S.W.2d 862 (1995).

In defendant's trial for aggravated robbery, once the trial court had admonished the jury during the state's closing argument, since defendant made no further objections, did not seek a further admonition, or request a mistrial, his failure to apprise the trial court of his belief that the admonition was inadequate precluded him from raising such an argument on appeal. McClain v. State, 361 Ark. 133, 205 S.W.3d 123 (2005).

Intent.

In determining whether the defendant committed aggravated robbery, it is of no consequence that the defendant was teaching the victim a lesson or that he did not keep the victim's property for himself. Smith v. State, 65 Ark. App. 216, 986 S.W.2d 738 (1999).

Judicial Review.

In determining the sufficiency of the evidence to show aggravated robbery, the Supreme Court only looks to see if, viewed in the light most favorable to the state, there was substantial evidence to support the charge. Beed v. State, 271 Ark. 526, 609 S.W.2d 898 (1980).

Where defendant was convicted of both attempted capital murder, ostensibly the more serious crime, which was a Class A felony, and aggravated robbery, a Class Y felony, the trial court properly set aside the attempted capital murder conviction based on the classification of the crime, rather than whether it was a lesser included offense. Beard v. State, 306 Ark. 546, 816 S.W.2d 860 (1991).

Jurisdiction.

Where force was initiated in this state, extension of criminal activity into another state did not deprive courts in this state of jurisdiction to try armed robbery charge. Thomas v. State, 262 Ark. 79, 553 S.W.2d 32 (1977).

Lesser Included Offense.

Court erred in failing to give instruction on lesser included offense of robbery. Hamilton v. State, 262 Ark. 366, 556 S.W.2d 884 (1977); Savannah v. State, 7 Ark. App. 161, 645 S.W.2d 694 (1983).

In a prosecution for capital murder, in proving the specified felony of aggravated robbery, there must be proof of the same or less than all the elements required to establish the commission of the capital offense and the specified felony is thus an included offense which falls within the double conviction prohibition of § 5-1-110, and the double jeopardy prohibition of the fifth amendment of the United States Constitution. Swaite v. State, 272 Ark. 128, 612 S.W.2d 307 (1981).

Aggravated robbery is a lesser included offense of attempted capital murder. Rowe v. State, 275 Ark. 37, 627 S.W.2d 16 (1982), superseded by statute as stated in, Van Jenkins v. State, 2017 Ark. 288, 529 S.W.3d 236 (2017).

Robbery is a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery. Hill v. State, 276 Ark. 300, 634 S.W.2d 120 (1982); Lovelace v. State, 276 Ark. 463, 637 S.W.2d 548 (1982).

Theft is not a lesser offense included within the definition of aggravated robbery. Hill v. State, 276 Ark. 300, 634 S.W.2d 120 (1982).

Court did not err in refusing to instruct on the lesser included offense of robbery. Hill v. State, 276 Ark. 300, 634 S.W.2d 120 (1982); Lovelace v. State, 276 Ark. 463, 637 S.W.2d 548 (1982); Smith v. State, 277 Ark. 403, 642 S.W.2d 299 (1982); Walters v. State, 283 Ark. 243, 675 S.W.2d 364 (1984); Young v. State, 283 Ark. 435, 678 S.W.2d 329 (1984).

Where the prosecution of defendant for first-degree murder and aggravated robbery arose from the same incident, his convictions for both aggravated robbery and first-degree murder violated the prohibition against double jeopardy and sentence for aggravated robbery would be set aside. Brewer v. State, 277 Ark. 40, 639 S.W.2d 54 (1982).

Where the defendant was convicted and sentenced for both aggravated robbery and attempt to commit first-degree murder, but the evidence showed that the aggravated robbery was the underlying felony to the charge of attempted murder, the trial court did not have the authority to impose sentences for both offenses; therefore, the conviction and sentence for the less serious offense, the attempted first-degree murder, would be set aside. Wilson v. State, 277 Ark. 219, 640 S.W.2d 440 (1982).

Where the facts of the case required proof of the aggravated robbery, the underlying felony, in the course of proving battery in the first degree which was alleged to have been committed during the course of a felony, the greater offense was actually included in the lesser offense and, where defendant was convicted for both offenses, the conviction and sentence for the lesser offense of battery must be set aside. Akins v. State, 278 Ark. 180, 644 S.W.2d 273 (1983).

Where it was necessary to prove the elements of aggravated robbery and kidnapping to prove the elements of attempted capital murder, the conviction and sentence imposed for aggravated robbery and kidnapping were set aside and the conviction and sentence for attempted capital murder were not disturbed. Hill v. State, 278 Ark. 194, 644 S.W.2d 282 (1983).

Where the defendant committed a first-degree battery during the course of an aggravated robbery, the battery was a lesser included offense of the robbery; thus, where the defendant had been convicted and sentenced for both offenses, the conviction and sentence for first-degree battery would be set aside. Robinson v. State, 279 Ark. 61, 648 S.W.2d 446 (1983).

Where the defendant's convictions for aggravated robbery and first-degree battery grew out of a single act, and the proof required to prove the aggravated robbery necessarily included proof of the first-degree battery, the defendant's conviction and sentence for the lesser offense, the battery, had to be set aside. Sanders v. State, 279 Ark. 32, 648 S.W.2d 451 (1983).

Since the offense of possession of a firearm requires proof that the person possessing the firearm has been convicted of a felony and that fact is not an element in the proof of aggravated robbery, the lesser offense is not included in aggravated robbery. Allen v. State, 281 Ark. 1, 660 S.W.2d 922 (1983), cert. denied, 472 U.S. 1019, 105 S. Ct. 3482, 87 L. Ed. 2d 617 (1985).

Theft, conspiracy to commit theft, conspiracy to commit aggravated robbery, and conspiracy to commit robbery are not lesser included offenses within the definition of aggravated robbery. Savannah v. State, 7 Ark. App. 161, 645 S.W.2d 694 (1983).

If the evidence showed that defendant aided or advised another in planning or committing a robbery but that the other person committed the greater inclusive offense of aggravated robbery, defendant's liability would be limited to the lesser included offense of robbery. Savannah v. State, 7 Ark. App. 161, 645 S.W.2d 694 (1983).

Even though robbery is a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery, the trial judge was obligated to give the lesser instruction only if there was a rational basis for acquitting defendant of aggravated robbery and convicting him of the lesser offense of robbery. Savannah v. State, 7 Ark. App. 161, 645 S.W.2d 694 (1983).

Where the defendant was illegally sentenced by the trial court for both attempted capital murder and the lesser included offense of aggravated robbery, the Arkansas Supreme Court did not err in setting aside his conviction and 10-year sentence for aggravated robbery, but leaving intact his conviction and 30-year sentence for attempted capital murder, since the court was not precluded from imposing sentence under the more stringent provision. Rowe v. Lockhart, 736 F.2d 457 (8th Cir. 1984).

The crime of theft is not a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery; thus, the defendant can be sentenced for both of these offenses without violating § 5-1-110, regarding multiple punishments, or the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Collins v. Lockhart, 771 F.2d 1580 (8th Cir. 1985).

Aggravated robbery is not a lesser included offense of burglary, as aggravated robbery requires some type of serious force or threat of force used with the purpose of committing a theft, none of which is required to commit burglary, and burglary requires only that the defendant enters or remains unlawfully in an occupiable structure with the purpose of committing any offense punishable by imprisonment. Kinsey v. State, 290 Ark. 4, 716 S.W.2d 188 (1986).

First degree battery is a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery. Carter v. Flintrol, Inc., 19 Ark. App. 317, 720 S.W.2d 337 (1986), superseded by statute as stated in, Service Chevrolet v. Atwood, 61 Ark. App. 190, 966 S.W.2d 909 (1998).

Aggravated robbery is not a lesser included offense of attempted capital murder under § 5-10-101(a)(2) (now subdivision (a)(3)). Where aggravated robbery was not the underlying felony of the defendant's attempted capital murder charge, conviction should not be set aside since the attempted capital murder charge was pursuant to § 5-10-101(a)(2) (now subdivision (a)(3)) and not § 5-10-101(a)(1). Rhodes v. State, 293 Ark. 211, 736 S.W.2d 284 (1987).

Theft and aggravated robbery are separate offenses for which a defendant may be convicted even though they arise out of one incident. Rolark v. State, 299 Ark. 299, 772 S.W.2d 588 (1989).

Where the prosecution charged attempted robbery rather than aggravated robbery as the underlying offense to a capital murder charge and defendant was convicted of aggravated robbery, the defendant's conviction must be reduced to simple robbery — the crime which the state used to support the capital murder charge. Mullins v. State, 303 Ark. 695, 799 S.W.2d 550 (1990).

Where there was no proof presented that defendant did not have a weapon during the aggravated robbery, it was not error for the trial court to refuse to instruct on the lesser included offenses of robbery and aggravated assault. Tarkington v. State, 313 Ark. 399, 855 S.W.2d 306 (1993).

In defendant's capital murder and aggravated robbery case, the court did not err by failing to instruct the jury on the lesser included offense of robbery where there was no rational basis for such instruction; defendant pushed into the home, demanded money, and pulled out a pair of broken scissors to enforce his demand, and he later murdered the victim and inflicted serious physical harm on another victim. Isom v. State, 356 Ark. 156, 148 S.W.3d 257 (2004), cert. denied, Isom v. Arkansas, 543 U.S. 865, 125 S. Ct. 204 (2004).

Prohibition against double jeopardy was not violated when defendant was convicted of first-degree battery and aggravated robbery because the elements of the offenses were not the same, and aggravated battery was not a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery. Clark v. State, 373 Ark. 161, 282 S.W.3d 801 (2008).

First-degree battery is not a lesser included offense of aggravated robbery as it is not established by proof of the same or less than all of the elements required to prove aggravated robbery. First-degree battery requires proof of the use of a firearm, whereas aggravated robbery does not; aggravated robbery requires proof of a robbery, whereas first-degree battery does not. Clark v. State, 373 Ark. 161, 282 S.W.3d 801 (2008).

Trial court did not err in refusing to instruct the jury on aggravated assault during defendant's trial for aggravated robbery because aggravated assault, in violation of § 5-13-204(a)(1) and (2), was not a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery pursuant to § 5-1-110(b)(1) as the two offenses required different elements of proof; aggravated assault required proof of circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, whereas aggravated robbery did not require such proof. Matthews v. State, 2009 Ark. 321, 319 S.W.3d 266 (2009).

In an aggravated robbery case, where there was no rational basis for a trial judge to instruct the jury on ordinary robbery, there was no error in the trial judge's failure to do so. Sweet v. State, 2011 Ark. 20, 370 S.W.3d 510 (2011).

Trial court did not err in failing to give a jury an instruction on simple robbery, which was a lesser-included offense of aggravated robbery, in violation of subdivisions (a)(1) and (2) of this section, because defendant essentially argued that defendant did not commit any offense at all; hence, there was no rational basis for the giving of a lesser-included offense instruction. Nickelson v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 363, 417 S.W.3d 214 (2012), appeal dismissed, 2013 Ark. 252 (2013).

Counsel complied with Ark. Sup. Ct. & Ct. App. R. 4-3(k), and appellant's appeal from his aggravated robbery conviction and sentence lacked merit because (1) the sufficiency of the evidence was not preserved for appellate review as counsel's motion for directed verdict failed to state with specificity the deficiency in the state's evidence, in contravention of Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1; (2) there was no merit to appellant's chain-of-custody argument to the items found in his car pursuant to a search warrant as there was no evidence of tampering presented, and there was testimony that the items were logged into evidence and remained in the evidence room until the trial; (3) it was undisputed that an armed robbery took place under subdivision (a)(1) of this section , so it was not an error to refuse to give an instruction on the lesser-included offense of robbery under § 5-12-102(a); and (4) appellant could not raise an ineffective assistance of counsel claim or challenge the qualifications of jurors for the first time on appeal. Mace v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 420, 421 S.W.3d 335 (2012).

Jury instruction on the lesser-included offense of attempted aggravated robbery was not warranted because there was no evidence of the offense of attempt under § 5-3-201(a)(2); when appellant stormed out of a retail store's stockroom brandishing a gun and pointing it employees, he actually completed the offense of aggravated robbery. Thomas v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 466, 422 S.W.3d 217 (2012).

Ownership.

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of aggravated robbery under § 5-36-102 where defendant pointed a pistol at the victim and demanded that the victim repay a two dollar debt because the intent to collect a debt at gunpoint did not negate the necessary intent to steal under subdivision (a)(1) of this section. Because defendant could not trace his ownership to the specific bills in the victim's possession, the victim, and not defendant, was the owner of the money in his possession, and it was theft to take it from him. Heard v. State, 2009 Ark. 546, 354 S.W.3d 49 (2009).

Representation of Deadly Weapon.

Defendant's hand under his shirt, even with the admitted intention of conveying to the victim that he was armed, was not sufficient representation to satisfy the requirements of aggravated robbery in the absence of the victim's awareness that defendant was armed. Fairchild v. State, 269 Ark. 273, 600 S.W.2d 16 (1980).

Although the defendant was charged in the information with aggravated robbery by the actual use of a deadly weapon, it was not error for the trial court to submit to the jury an instruction which allowed them to convict the defendant upon proof that he merely represented that he was so armed. Richard v. State, 286 Ark. 410, 691 S.W.2d 872 (1985).

Where a defendant verbally represents that he is armed with a deadly weapon this is sufficient to convict for aggravated robbery regardless of whether in fact he did have such a weapon. Where no verbal representation is made and only conduct is in evidence, the focus is on what the victim perceived concerning a deadly weapon. Clemmons v. State, 303 Ark. 354, 796 S.W.2d 583 (1990).

Although defendant did not say he had a gun, his statement that he would “shoot” store clerk if she did not give him the money was a verbal representation that he was armed with a deadly weapon and satisfied the requirements of this section. Coley v. State, 304 Ark. 304, 801 S.W.2d 647 (1991).

Defendant's use of a pair of scissors and his representation to victim that he had a gun were sufficient to sustain his conviction for aggravated robbery. Johnson v. State, 326 Ark. 3, 929 S.W.2d 707 (1996).

Testimony from a victim and a witness in a mall parking lot purse snatching that defendant verbally represented that he had a gun and would shoot was sufficient to convict defendant for aggravated robbery under subsection (a) of this section regardless of whether he did in fact have a weapon. Nelson v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 69 (2010).

Defendant's conviction for aggravated robbery, in violation of subdivision (a)(2) of this section, was supported by the evidence because, based on the victim's testimony, the jury could have inferred that the victim believed defendant was showing a second victim some sort of weapon during the bank robbery. Feuget v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 182, 394 S.W.3d 310 (2012).

Sentence.

Where the jury convicted both defendants of aggravated robbery and recommended that each be sentenced to three years, the trial judge did not violate the defendants' rights against double jeopardy by sentencing each defendant to five years' imprisonment with two years suspended. Caldwell v. State, 268 Ark. 713, 595 S.W.2d 253 (Ct. App. 1980).

Where there was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of robbery, but insufficient evidence to sustain a conviction of aggravated robbery, the court modified the judgment below by reducing it to the lesser included offense of robbery and imposing the minimum prison sentence prescribed by law for a conviction of robbery. Fairchild v. State, 269 Ark. 273, 600 S.W.2d 16 (1980).

The relative difference in the severity of sentences given to codefendants in an aggravated robbery trial did not entitle the defendant who received the most severe sentence to a new trial. Sanders v. State, 274 Ark. 525, 626 S.W.2d 366 (1982).

Where the defendant's sentence was within the lawful maximum for that offense and was unaffected by any demonstrated error in the trial, the Supreme Court had no authority to modify the sentence. Lear v. State, 278 Ark. 70, 643 S.W.2d 550 (1982).

Sentence held to be within the legal maximum set by the legislature. Andrews v. State, 283 Ark. 297, 675 S.W.2d 636 (1984).

Sentence properly reduced to range prescribed for second-degree murder. Wilkins v. State, 292 Ark. 596, 731 S.W.2d 775 (1987).

Due to the amendment of subsection (b) of this section by Acts 1981, No. 620 and the repealing language contained in § 18 of that act, subsection (c) has been repealed. Mayfield v. State, 293 Ark. 216, 736 S.W.2d 12 (Ark. 1987).

Sentence was correctly enhanced. Allen v. State, 294 Ark. 209, 742 S.W.2d 886 (1988).

Defendant who was convicted of aggravated robbery and as an habitual offender was properly sentenced to 40 years imprisonment under § 5-4-501(b)(1) since aggravated robbery is a Class Y felony and former subsection (c) of this section, which contained enhancement provisions, was repealed by Acts 1981, No. 620. Tippitt v. State, 294 Ark. 342, 742 S.W.2d 931 (1988).

Where merger of two aggravated robberies was not required under § 5-1-110(d)(1), and where defendant waived a sentencing hearing, thereby giving the trial court sole sentencing authority under § 5-4-103(b)(4), the trial court had the authority to order defendant's sentences to run consecutively under § 5-4-403(a). Walker v. State, 353 Ark. 12, 110 S.W.3d 752 (2003).

Upon conviction for aggravated robbery and misdemeanor theft of property, defendant's enhanced sentence as a habitual offender with two prior felony convictions was affirmed as there was no conflict between § 5-4-104(a) and § 16-90-120(a) and (b); § 5-4-104(a) refers only to the initial sentence and § 16-90-120(a) and (b) refer only to a sentence enhancement that could be added to the initial sentence. Williams v. State, 364 Ark. 203, 217 S.W.3d 817 (2005).

Denial of writ of habeas corpus was proper, because life imprisonment for aggravated robbery was within the statutory range, irrespective of any enhancement as a habitual offender, and a sentence that was within the prescribed range was not illegal. Goins v. Norris, 2012 Ark. 192 (2012).

In an aggravated robbery case, a trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence at sentencing of appellant's participation in a prior robbery; it was of no consequence that appellant had not yet been convicted in the robbery at issue. As to relevance, the fact that appellant was an active participant in two robberies, just days apart and committed in nearly the same fashion, was relevant character evidence and was evidence of aggravated circumstances showing his propensity to engage in similar criminal conduct. Thomas v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 466, 422 S.W.3d 217 (2012).

Trial court did not err in denying defendant's petition for writ of habeas corpus because the face of the order simply gave no indication that defendant was in any way sentenced for attempted capital murder, defendant's life sentence for aggravated robbery was a permitted sentence at the time of the offense and was neither cruel nor unusual, and defendant cited to no authority for his proposition that an information must contain the relevant sentencing range to be sought or that the failure to include such a range resulted in the State's waiver of that sentence. Philyaw v. Kelley, 2015 Ark. 465, 477 S.W.3d 503 (2015) (decision under prior law).

Statements.

Although defendant unequivocally invoked his right to remain silent, a detective never ceased questioning him, and defendant could not have waived the earlier invocation of his right. Due to the trial court's prejudicial error in admitting defendant's statement, his convictions for aggravated robbery and firearm enhancement were reversed. Coleman v. State, 2017 Ark. 218 (2017).

Trial Proceedings.

The defense motion for a mistrial because the trial judge, in identifying the lawyers for the jury panel, mentioned that the defense attorney was from the Public Defender's Office was properly denied, and the failure to admonish the jury to disregard the reference was not improper where counsel did not request such an admonition. Vaughn v. State, 289 Ark. 31, 709 S.W.2d 73 (1986).

Where the fact that the defendant had been in the penitentiary was relevant, because the plan for the robbery was conceived by inmates who were in the penitentiary and a key witness for the state identified the defendant as the man called “Chief” whom he had known in the penitentiary, the prosecutor was entitled to refer to it in his opening statement. Ricarte v. State, 290 Ark. 100, 717 S.W.2d 488 (1986).

A request for a reduction from aggravated robbery to simple robbery does not imply a request for a directed verdict for aggravated robbery. Robinson v. State, 317 Ark. 17, 875 S.W.2d 837 (1994).

In defendant's trial for aggravated robbery, his argument, that the trial court erred in allowing a sergeant to testify that cigarettes found in defendant's vehicle during his arrest were those stolen from the liquor store, was not preserved for review because it was only after the last question that defendant's counsel objected, arguing that the sergeant was not qualified to tell the jury what the numbers on the cigarette pack signified; defendant should have objected at the first opportunity to that line of questioning. McClain v. State, 361 Ark. 133, 205 S.W.3d 123 (2005).

Circuit court properly convicted defendant of aggravated robbery where defendant's directed-verdict motions were not specific regarding which elements were not met by the State's evidence nor did they specify the elements of aggravated robbery; defendant simply argued that none of the elements were met. Avery v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 405, 585 S.W.3d 742 (2019).

Cited: McGee v. State, 262 Ark. 473, 557 S.W.2d 885 (1977); Halfacre v. State, 265 Ark. 378, 578 S.W.2d 237 (1979); Jarrett v. State, 265 Ark. 662, 580 S.W.2d 460 (1979); McCroskey v. State, 266 Ark. 806, 586 S.W.2d 1 (Ct. App. 1979); Wright v. State, 267 Ark. 264, 590 S.W.2d 15 (1979); State v. Bocksnick, 268 Ark. 74, 593 S.W.2d 176 (1980); Barnum v. State, 268 Ark. 141, 594 S.W.2d 229 (1980); Scroggins v. State, 268 Ark. 261, 595 S.W.2d 219 (1980); Smith v. State, 268 Ark. 282, 595 S.W.2d 671 (1980); Cromwell v. State, 269 Ark. 104, 598 S.W.2d 733 (1980); Plummer v. State, 270 Ark. 11, 603 S.W.2d 402 (1980); Brewer v. State, 271 Ark. 254, 608 S.W.2d 363 (1980); Brewer v. State, 271 Ark. 810, 611 S.W.2d 179 (1981); Wilson v. State, 272 Ark. 361, 614 S.W.2d 663 (1981); Thorne v. State, 274 Ark. 102, 622 S.W.2d 178 (1981); Lockett v. State, 275 Ark. 338, 629 S.W.2d 302 (1982); Brown v. State, 276 Ark. 20, 631 S.W.2d 829 (1982); Freeman v. State, 6 Ark. App. 240, 640 S.W.2d 456 (1982); Brown v. State, 278 Ark. 604, 648 S.W.2d 67 (1983); Pickens v. State, 279 Ark. 457, 652 S.W.2d 626 (Ark. 1983); Moore v. State, 280 Ark. 222, 656 S.W.2d 698 (1983); Whitfield v. State, 8 Ark. App. 329, 652 S.W.2d 42 (1983); Bell v. Lockhart, 741 F.2d 1105 (8th Cir. 1984); Smith v. State, 286 Ark. 247, 691 S.W.2d 154 (1985); Jones v. State, 15 Ark. App. 283, 692 S.W.2d 775 (1985); Forgy v. State, 16 Ark. App. 76, 697 S.W.2d 126 (1985); Leggins v. Lockhart, 649 F. Supp. 894 (E.D. Ark. 1986); Stickley v. State, 294 Ark. 44, 740 S.W.2d 616 (Ark. 1987); Robinson v. State, 295 Ark. 693, 751 S.W.2d 335 (1988); Noel v. State, 28 Ark. App. 158, 771 S.W.2d 325 (1989); Jones v. State, 301 Ark. 530, 785 S.W.2d 218 (1990); Johnson v. State, 307 Ark. 525, 823 S.W.2d 440 (1992); Mask v. State, 314 Ark. 25, 869 S.W.2d 1 (1993); Goins v. State, 319 Ark. 689, 890 S.W.2d 602 (1995); Garrison v. State, 319 Ark. 617, 893 S.W.2d 763 (1995); Reams v. State, 322 Ark. 336, 909 S.W.2d 324 (1995); Booker v. State, 324 Ark. 468, 922 S.W.2d 337 (1996); Butler v. State, 324 Ark. 476, 922 S.W.2d 685 (1996); Carroll v. State, 326 Ark. 602, 932 S.W.2d 339 (1996); Mays v. State, 57 Ark. App. 282, 944 S.W.2d 562 (1997); Releford v. State, 59 Ark. App. 136, 954 S.W.2d 295 (1997); Moore v. State, 330 Ark. 514, 954 S.W.2d 932 (1997); Marshall v. State, 68 Ark. App. 223, 5 S.W.3d 496 (1999); Smith v. State, 351 Ark. 468, 95 S.W.3d 801 (2003); Hoover v. State, 353 Ark. 424, 108 S.W.3d 618 (2003); Isom v. State, 356 Ark. 156, 148 S.W.3d 257 (2004).