# Brown v. State

> Supreme Court of Arkansas · November 29, 2001 · 347 Ark. 44

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691542

## Case

- **Full name:** Kevin Warzell BROWN and Justin Scott Thornhill v. STATE of Arkansas
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Arkansas
- **Decided:** November 29, 2001
- **Citations:** 347 Ark. 44; 60 S.W.3d 422; 2001 Ark. LEXIS 642
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurring in part by Glaze
- **Judges:** Donald L. Corbin
- **Cited by:** 17 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691542

## Opinion text

T OM GLAZE, Justice, concurring in part; dissenting in part. I concur in the majority’s decision to reverse for a limited remand for the trial court to conduct another suppression hearing. However, I disagree with the majority’s holding that the trial court erred in refusing to give the lesser-included instruction on robbery. As the majority opinion states, aggravated robbery occurs if the person represents, by word or conduct, that he is armed with a deadly weapon.
Here, appellant Thornhill entered the Fort Smith convenience store demanding that the store clerk give him money. Thornhill wore a ski mask and brandished some type of gun to threaten the clerk into complying with Thornhill’s demand. Obviously, Thorn-hill intended his use of the ski mask and gun to cause the clerk to understand that she should comply or Thornhill would use the weapon. Although she initially thought Thornhill’s weapon looked strange, the victim (clerk) clearly perceived Thornhill’s message that her life was being threatened if she did not hand over money.
In my view of the facts, Thornhill’s conduct and words unequivocally conveyed that he was perpetrating an armed robbery. The majority opinion is wrong to suggest that the jury could reasonably have found no aggravated robbery occurred because the police later found only a BB gun in Thornhill's apartment. Such a suggestion fails to focus on what the victim perceived at the time of the crime. The trial court was clearly correct in concluding from Thornhill’s conduct and words that he was in the store to commit armed or aggravated robbery. Thus, I would affirm the court’s ruling on this point.
Arnold, C.J., and Hannah, J., join this opinion.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9691542. Public record. Not legal advice.