ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-13-1155
Opinion Delivered June 18, 2014
KIM DERICK JACKSON APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
SOUTHERN DISTRICT
[NO. CR-2011-051]
V.
HONORABLE DAVID G. HENRY,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE AFFIRMED
RHONDA K. WOOD, Judge
The State charged Kim Jackson with two counts of first-degree terroristic
threatening.1 A jury convicted him on only one count. Jackson now appeals the
conviction. However, he never made a directed-verdict motion specifying how the count
that resulted in conviction lacked sufficient evidence. His argument, therefore, is not
preserved for our review, and we affirm.
The State alleged that Jackson had threatened two jailers, Houston Thompson and
Timothy Sneed, while he was incarcerated in the county jail. Both jailers testified at
Jackson’s jury trial that Jackson ripped out a telephone headset and smashed it against the
jail cell’s windows. In response, Thompson and Sneed entered the cell and transported
Jackson to a holding tank. On the way there, Jackson made the comments that formed the
1
Jackson was also charged and convicted of criminal mischief, but he has not
appealed that conviction.
Cite as
basis of the criminal charges; and on this point Thompson’s and Sneed’s testimonies
diverged.
Thompson testified that Jackson said he would “hurt us, pretty much[,] and he
mentioned killing [Sneed] at one point.” The State attempted to refresh Thompson’s
recollection and provided him with the incident report he signed shortly after the quarrel.
After reading the report, Thompson clarified his testimony and said that Jackson
threatened to “kill both of us the first time he saw us.” But Sneed’s testimony was less
equivocal. He testified that Jackson told him, “[w]hen I get out, I’m going to kill you.”
At the end of the State’s case, Jackson moved for a directed verdict on the count of
terroristic threatening involving victim Thompson. The court denied the motion and
submitted the case to the jury. The jury eventually acquitted Jackson on the count against
victim Thompson, but it convicted him on the count against victim Sneed.
On appeal, Jackson argues that the conviction against victim Sneed is not supported
by substantial evidence. Yet that argument is not preserved. A motion for a directed
verdict must specifically advise the circuit court about how the evidence was insufficient.
Eastin v. State,
(2007). Arguments not raised at trial will not
be addressed for the first time on appeal, and parties cannot change the grounds for an
objection on appeal, but are bound by the scope and nature of the objections and
arguments presented at trial. Tryon v. State,
(2007). Here,
Jackson’s directed-verdict argument only addressed the charge involving victim
Thompson. It was silent regarding the charge involving victim Sneed. Because the jury
acquitted Jackson for the charge against victim Thompson, there is no sufficiency
2
Cite as
argument preserved for our review. We cannot now, for the first time on appeal, consider
Jackson’s new argument that the evidence was insufficient for the charge involving Sneed.
Affirmed.
PITTMAN and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Digby Law Firm, by: Bobby R. Digby II, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass’t Att’y Gen., and Richmond
Giles, Law Student Admitted to Practice Pursuant to Rule XV of the Rules Governing
Admission to the Bar of the Supreme Court under the supervision of Darnisa Evans
Johnson, Deputy Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3
