Parker v. State: Eyewitness Identification Standards and the Skip Rule for Lesser-Included Offenses

Introduction

In Keundre Parker v. State of Arkansas (2025 Ark. 55), the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed capital-murder and multiple aggravated-assault convictions, clarifying two significant legal precepts:

When and how an eyewitness’s positive identification at night—supported by environmental light and muzzle flashes—satisfies the substantial-evidence standard for capital murder and aggravated assault.
The application of Arkansas’s “skip rule” for lesser-included jury instructions: once a jury is instructed on and rejects intermediate lesser offenses (first- and second-degree murder), the omission of still lesser offenses (manslaughter, negligent homicide) is harmless error.

Appellant Parker challenged (1) the sufficiency of the evidence—specifically the reliability of eyewitness testimony in low-light conditions—and (2) the trial court’s refusal to give jury instructions on manslaughter, negligent homicide, and first-degree assault. This commentary reviews the facts, outlines the court’s reasoning, examines the precedents underpinning the decision, and explores its future impact on Arkansas criminal law.

Summary of the Judgment

On June 7, 2021, Sharmaine Atkinson and two minors were shot at while parked outside the home of Parker’s mother. Gunfire—over 100 rounds—erupted after Parker, who was among four men standing in the driveway, exclaimed, “That’s the car.” One minor (MV1) was killed, and four others were injured. Atkinson positively identified Parker as one of the shooters, relying on streetlights, the flash of gunfire, and her familiarity with him.

At trial, Parker moved for directed verdicts and requested jury instructions on lesser-included offenses (manslaughter, negligent homicide, first-degree assault). The circuit court denied both motions. The jury convicted Parker of capital murder and four counts of aggravated assault; he received life plus 14 years. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed:

The court held that Atkinson’s identification was credible and amounted to “substantial evidence” under De la Garza v. State, Ellis v. State, and related precedents. Denial of Parker’s directed-verdict motion was proper.
The court applied Arkansas’s “skip rule” (Flowers v. State), finding that, because the jury was instructed on first- and second-degree murder and nevertheless convicted of capital murder, the failure to give additional lesser-included instructions (manslaughter, negligent homicide) was harmless error. Likewise, no rational basis supported a first-degree assault instruction.

Analysis

Precedents Cited

De la Garza v. State (2025 Ark. 10): Defines “substantial evidence” and directs sufficiency review in the light most favorable to the State.
Finley v. State (2019 Ark. 336): Explains that positive eyewitness identification, if not inherently unbelievable, is sufficient to sustain a conviction.
Mason v. State (2013 Ark. 492) & Ellis v. State (2012 Ark. 65): Confirm that one credible eyewitness is enough unless testimony is physically impossible or clearly unbelievable.
Goehler v. State (2023 Ark. 186): States the rule for a court’s duty to instruct on lesser-included offenses “when there is a rational basis” for doing so.
Flowers v. State (2005 Ark. 362): Articulates the “skip rule,” under which the omission of even lesser offenses is cured when the jury rejects intermediate lesser offenses already given.

Legal Reasoning

1. Sufficiency of Evidence
Under the De la Garza framework, the appellate court viewed all evidence in the State’s favor. Atkinson’s testimony that she saw Parker (her cousin) announce “That’s the car,” and immediately witnessed muzzle flashes that illuminated his face, was not “inherently improbable” or physically impossible. The combination of streetlights and gunshot flashes satisfied the “substantial evidence” threshold, making the directed-verdict denial proper.

2. Lesser-Included Offense Instructions
Arkansas Code § 5-1-110(c) requires a “rational basis” to acquit on the charged crime and convict on a lesser offense. The trial court gave instructions on first- and second-degree murder; the jury nonetheless convicted Parker of capital murder. Under the skip rule (Flowers), any omission of still lesser offenses (manslaughter, negligent homicide) is harmless. As for first-degree assault, no evidence suggested Parker acted recklessly (a mens rea lower than intentional), so no rational basis existed to warrant that instruction.

Impact

This decision affirms two enduring points of Arkansas criminal jurisprudence:

Eyewitness Identification: Even in nighttime shootings, a witness’s positive identification—bolstered by environmental illumination and muzzle flashes—can meet the criminal sufficiency standard. Defense challenges to identification reliability remain questions of witness credibility.
Jury Instructions on Lesser-Included Offenses: Trial courts need only provide instructions on intermediate lesser offenses when supported by a “rational basis.” Once those are given and rejected, the skip rule eliminates any requirement to instruct on still lesser offenses, streamlining jury charge practice and reducing retrials on instructional grounds.

Future capital and aggravated-assault cases will cite Parker v. State when addressing late-night identifications and contested jury charges on lesser-included offenses.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Directed Verdict: A pre-verdict motion arguing that even taken in the State’s favor, the evidence cannot support a conviction. If substantial evidence exists, the motion must be denied.
Substantial Evidence: Evidence that a reasonable jury could accept as adequate to support the conclusion beyond a reasonable doubt, without speculation.
Lesser-Included Offense: A crime whose elements are entirely subsumed by a greater offense. “Lesser-included instructions” guide juries on convicting for that lesser crime if they reject the greater charge.
Skip Rule: When a trial court instructs on and the jury rejects intermediate lesser offenses, the failure to instruct on still lesser offenses does not require reversal.

Conclusion

Parker v. State consolidates key Arkansas criminal-law principles. It confirms that a single, credible eyewitness can satisfy the sufficiency standard—even under challenging conditions—so long as no inherent improbability exists. It also streamlines jury-instruction practice by reaffirming the skip rule: once a jury considers and rejects certain lesser-included offenses, further omissions are harmless. Together, these holdings reinforce trial courts’ discretion in evidentiary rulings and jury charges, providing a clear framework for future capital-murder and aggravated-assault prosecutions in Arkansas.