Preservation Is Paramount: Arkansas Supreme Court Clarifies Rule 33.1 Applies to Sentence Enhancements and Specific Sufficiency Grounds

Introduction

In Morgan Weatherford v. State of Arkansas, 2025 Ark. 150, the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed convictions for first-degree murder, residential burglary, and theft of property, along with a ten-year sentence enhancement for committing murder in the presence of a child. Chief Justice Karen R. Baker authored the opinion. The ruling addresses four appellate issues: (1) sufficiency of the evidence as to all counts and the enhancement; (2) suppression of custodial statements; (3) admission of autopsy photographs under Rule 403; and (4) exclusion of mitigation evidence at sentencing.

Beyond its case-specific outcomes, the opinion underscores critical procedural preservation principles under Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1—most notably that a defendant must renew directed-verdict challenges at the close of all the evidence, and that the same preservation rules extend to sentence enhancements. The decision also reinforces the totality-of-the-circumstances analysis for Miranda waivers by defendants with limited literacy, and it illustrates a trial court’s correct on-the-record balancing of gruesome autopsy photographs under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 403.

Summary of the Opinion

The Court affirmed on all points:

• First-degree murder: Substantial evidence supported a finding that Weatherford acted with the purpose of causing the victim’s death, based on the nature and extent of the strangulation and blunt-force injuries, corroborative forensic evidence, and Weatherford’s evolving statements.
• Residential burglary and theft: Sufficiency arguments were unpreserved because the specific grounds raised on appeal differed from those argued in directed-verdict motions at trial (Rule 33.1).
• Sentence enhancement (murder in the presence of a child): Challenge to sufficiency was waived for failure to renew the directed-verdict motion at the close of all the evidence (Rule 33.1; Dickey v. State).
• Suppression: Under the totality of the circumstances, the State proved by a preponderance that Weatherford knowingly, intelligently, and voluntarily waived Miranda rights on both interview dates.
• Autopsy photographs: The trial court did not abuse its discretion under Rule 403; the photographs had significant probative value to explain medical findings on strangulation and head trauma.
• Mitigation evidence: The trial court acted within its discretion to exclude late-disclosed school records and social history documents during sentencing due to discovery and timing concerns.

Case Background

The case arose from the homicide of Rachel King in Booneville, Arkansas, on September 3, 2019. Law enforcement found King deceased on her kitchen floor, with her three children present at the home—one of whom immediately identified “Morgan” as the perpetrator. King’s vehicle was missing but later found. The investigation revealed a broken window with biological material and a pair of blood-stained shorts connected to Weatherford. DNA linked the blood on the shorts to King and touch DNA on the window to Weatherford. After two interrogations (September 4 and 5), Weatherford’s account shifted; he ultimately admitted entering King’s home through a window and described an altercation culminating in grabbing her by the neck. The medical examiner determined the cause of death as hypoxic ischemic encephalopathy due to strangulation and blunt-force head trauma.

A jury convicted Weatherford of first-degree murder, residential burglary, and theft; it also imposed a ten-year enhancement for committing murder in the presence of a child. The circuit court sentenced Weatherford to life imprisonment, plus consecutive terms of twenty years (burglary) and six years (theft), fines, and the enhancement term. On appeal, he challenged sufficiency, suppression, evidentiary rulings, and sentencing.

Detailed Analysis

Precedents and Authorities Cited

• Sufficiency and circumstantial evidence:
  • Edmond v. State, 351 Ark. 495, 95 S.W.3d 789 (2003) – View evidence in the light most favorable to the State; affirm if substantial evidence exists.
  • Dortch v. State, 2018 Ark. 135, 544 S.W.3d 518 – Substantial evidence standard.
  • Drennan v. State, 2018 Ark. 328, 559 S.W.3d 262 – Jury credibility determinations.
  • Carmichael v. State, 340 Ark. 598, 12 S.W.3d 225 (2000) – Whether evidence excludes other hypotheses is for the jury.
• Intent in homicide:
  • Mulkey v. State, 330 Ark. 113, 952 S.W.2d 149 (1997) – Intent may be inferred from manner of killing and injuries; strangulation and blunt-force trauma can support purposeful-acts inferences.
  • McCray v. State, 2020 Ark. 172, 598 S.W.3d 509 – Intent may be inferred from circumstances; jurors rely on common experience.
  • Robinson v. State, 353 Ark. 372, 108 S.W.3d 622 (2003) – Lies and changing stories may be considered as evidence of guilt.
  • Conte v. State, 2015 Ark. 220, 463 S.W.3d 686 – Jury may accept State’s version over defendant’s.
• Preservation (directed verdicts):
  • Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1 – Directed-verdict motion must specify grounds and be made at the close of the State’s case and renewed at the close of all the evidence.
  • Bridges v. State, 2023 Ark. 157, 676 S.W.3d 275 – Appellant is bound by the scope and grounds asserted below; cannot shift theories on appeal.
  • Dickey v. State, 2016 Ark. 66, 483 S.W.3d 287 – Failure to renew at close of all the evidence waives sufficiency challenges.
• Miranda and voluntariness:
  • MacKool v. State, 365 Ark. 416, 231 S.W.3d 676 (2006) – Custodial statements presumed involuntary; State bears preponderance burden to show voluntary, knowing, intelligent waiver.
  • Halliburton v. State, 2020 Ark. 101, 594 S.W.3d 856 – Totality test; deference to circuit court credibility evaluations; no coercion required for admissibility.
  • Flowers v. State, 362 Ark. 193, 208 S.W.3d 113 (2005) – Standard of review for suppression rulings: clearly against preponderance of the evidence.
• Rule 403 and photographic evidence:
  • Ark. R. Evid. 403 – Probative value vs. unfair prejudice balancing.
  • Mackrell v. State, 2022 Ark. 93, 643 S.W.3d 12 – Gruesome photos may be admissible if probative to explain testimony, prove elements, corroborate, or help jurors understand.
  • Arnold v. State, 2022 Ark. 191, 653 S.W.3d 781 – Abuse of discretion standard is high; requires improvidence or lack of due consideration.
  • Berry v. State, 290 Ark. 223, 718 S.W.2d 447 (1986) – Limits on cumulative, gory photos where not probative of disputed issues; distinguished here.
• Sentencing-phase evidentiary discretion:
  • Collins v. State, 2019 Ark. 110, 571 S.W.3d 469 – Broad discretion in evidentiary rulings; reversal only for abuse.
• Statutes:
  • Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-102(a)(2) – First-degree murder (purposeful causing of death).
  • Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202(1), (2) – Purposeful and knowing mental states.
  • Ark. Code Ann. § 5-39-201, § 5-39-101(4), (9) – Residential burglary and definitions.
  • Ark. Code Ann. § 5-36-103 – Theft of property.
  • Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-702(a)(2) – Enhancement for committing first-degree murder in the presence of a child.
• Record supplementation:
  • Weatherford v. State, 2025 Ark. 44 (per curiam) – Remand to supplement record with the full September 4 interview recording; ensures a complete appellate record.

Legal Reasoning and Application

1) Sufficiency of the Evidence – First-Degree Murder

The Court applied the substantial-evidence standard, crediting the State’s proof and deferring to the jury’s credibility determinations. Intent to kill—rarely proven by direct evidence—was inferred from:

• The medical examiner’s findings of strangulation (abrasions, internal neck hemorrhaging) and blunt-force head trauma (subscalp hemorrhaging; cerebral edema with flattening of the brain’s surface).
• Weatherford’s statements admitting he “grabbed her by her neck,” which aligned with physical evidence of prolonged force (likely one to two minutes of strangulation).
• Consciousness-of-guilt indicators: shifting accounts to law enforcement; theft and abandonment of the victim’s vehicle; and incriminating statements made during transport.

Relying on Mulkey, the Court held the jury could reasonably infer purposeful intent from the manner and severity of the injuries, notwithstanding Weatherford’s “tussling” narrative. The conviction thus rested on robust physical corroboration plus an incriminating admission.

2) Sufficiency – Residential Burglary and Theft of Property (Preservation)

The Court did not reach the merits. Invoking Rule 33.1 and Bridges, it held that Weatherford’s appellate theories differed from the directed-verdict grounds argued below.

• Residential burglary: On appeal, Weatherford argued the State needed to identify and prove a specific underlying offense in the burglary count. But at trial, his directed-verdict arguments focused on license/privilege to enter (claimed residual residence and belongings) and a lack of intent to commit a felony upon entry. Because the appellate theory diverged from the trial motion’s grounds, it was unpreserved.
• Theft: At trial, Weatherford argued he had purchased the vehicle; on appeal, he argued lack of unauthorized control and lack of purpose to deprive. The variance resulted in unpreserved sufficiency claims.

This aspect of the opinion is a cautionary illustration of preservation: defendants must present the same specific sufficiency grounds to the trial court that they intend to pursue on appeal.

3) Sufficiency – Sentence Enhancement (Presence of a Child) and Rule 33.1

Weatherford moved for a directed verdict on the enhancement at the close of the State’s case but failed to renew at the close of all the evidence. Citing Rule 33.1 and Dickey, the Court held the claim waived.

Significance: The Court’s application of Rule 33.1 to the enhancement confirms that directed-verdict preservation requirements apply to sentence-enhancement sufficiency challenges just as they do to substantive offenses. Even if the State’s proof arguably relied on circumstantial indicators of the children’s presence (e.g., a child awake in the home; the timing of events), the Court refused to consider the merits because preservation failed.

4) Suppression – Miranda Waiver and Voluntariness

The Court reviewed the totality of the circumstances and affirmed the denial of suppression:

• Both interviews began with formal Miranda warnings; Weatherford signed and initialed rights forms and stated he understood his rights. He could read portions of the form and specifically asked about “coerce,” which the officer attempted to explain.
• Law enforcement testified Weatherford was coherent, did not appear intoxicated, did not ask for a lawyer, and did not try to halt questioning (and, tellingly, he later exercised his right to stop an interview—evidence he understood his rights).
• Claims about low IQ, disability payments, and medication/alcohol were either not supported by the record or did not overcome the State’s proof of a knowing, intelligent, and voluntary waiver.

With deference to the circuit court’s credibility findings (Halliburton) and in the absence of coercion (MacKool), the Court held the State met its preponderance burden and affirmed admission of both custodial statements.

5) Autopsy Photographs – Rule 403 Balancing

The court engaged in a meticulous, photo-by-photo Rule 403 analysis, excluding two images but admitting eight challenged photographs, including:

• Scalp reflected to show internal hemorrhage (head trauma).
• Brain images showing flattening from cerebral edema.
• Neck dissection images showing internal hemorrhage from strangulation.

The medical examiner explained the probative value of each image to illustrate injuries central to cause of death. The Court distinguished Berry (where cumulative gore bore little on the disputed issue of accomplice liability) because here the identity and mens rea of the direct perpetrator were primary issues. The trial court’s careful record of the probative-prejudicial balance (Mackrell; Arnold) defeated any claim of abuse of discretion.

6) Exclusion of Mitigating Sentencing Evidence – Discovery and Timing

Weatherford sought to introduce school records and a social history chronology during sentencing. The State objected that it requested those materials in 2021 but received them only after trial began. The court permitted a proffer but excluded the evidence based on its standard approach to late disclosures in a case pending more than three years.

The Supreme Court affirmed, finding no abuse of discretion (Collins). Importantly, the Court noted defense counsel’s acknowledgment that the documents had been furnished to a defense expert whom the State had subpoenaed, reinforcing the fairness of the State’s discovery expectation.

Impact and Implications

On Preservation and Appellate Practice

• Rule 33.1 Compliance: The case offers a clear reminder that:
  • Directed-verdict motions must be made at the close of the State’s case and renewed at the close of all the evidence—including for sentence enhancements.
  • The specific theory of insufficiency raised at trial must match the theory on appeal; new or different sufficiency grounds are unpreserved.
• Enhancements Are Not Exempt: The Court’s waiver ruling underscores that enhancements stand on the same preservation footing as substantive charges.

On Miranda and Vulnerable Defendants

• Totality Rules: Defendants claiming low literacy, cognitive limitations, or medication issues must supply record support; otherwise, signed warnings, initialed rights, and coherent answers will usually sustain the State’s burden.
• Best Practices for Law Enforcement: Reading each right aloud, checking for understanding, clarifying confusing terms, and documenting comprehension (including when a suspect invokes a right) are persuasive at suppression hearings.

On Gruesome Photographs and Rule 403

• Thoughtful On-the-Record Balancing: Trial courts that articulate why each image is probative—e.g., to explain medical findings or causation—and exclude duplicative images are on firm appellate ground, even if admitted photos are graphic.
• Distinguishing Berry: When identity, intent, or mechanism of death is genuinely disputed, autopsy photos directly illustrating those issues are likely admissible.

On Sentencing Evidence and Discovery

• Timeliness Matters: Late-disclosed mitigation records—even if important—may be excluded when a case has been pending for years and the State sought the materials well in advance. Counsel should anticipate mitigation needs and comply with informal and formal discovery expectations.

Complex Concepts Simplified

• Substantial Evidence: Enough proof that a reasonable person could reach the verdict without speculating—viewed in the light most favorable to the State.
• Purposeful Intent (First-Degree Murder): Acting with the conscious objective to cause death. Jurors can infer intent from actions and injuries (e.g., strangulation for a sustained period).
• Residential Burglary: Entering or remaining in someone else’s residence without permission, intending to commit an imprisonable offense inside. The “underlying offense” (e.g., theft, assault) is often critical and may require clear identification in charging and instructions—though this case did not reach that merits issue due to preservation.
• Theft of Property: Taking or exercising control over another’s property without authorization, with the purpose of depriving the owner of it.
• Miranda Waiver: A valid waiver must be knowing, intelligent, and voluntary. Courts consider age, education, understanding, sobriety, lack of threats, and clear rights advisements.
• Rule 403 Balancing: Courts weigh evidence’s usefulness against unfair prejudice. Graphic photos can be admitted if they genuinely help explain testimony or prove elements and are not needlessly cumulative.
• Hypoxic Ischemic Encephalopathy: Brain injury caused by inadequate oxygen and blood flow—consistent with prolonged strangulation—often accompanied by brain swelling (cerebral edema) and visible changes like flattening of the brain’s surface.
• Preservation Under Rule 33.1: To challenge sufficiency on appeal, a defendant must:
  • Move for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case and renew after all evidence.
  • State specific grounds that match the appellate argument.
  • Apply these requirements to enhancements as well as substantive charges.
• “Presence of a Child” Enhancement: Extra prison time may be imposed when a qualifying offense is committed in a child’s presence. While the Court did not reach sufficiency in this case, other cases allow circumstantial proof (e.g., children in the home at the time).

Conclusion

Weatherford reinforces bedrock trial and appellate principles in Arkansas criminal law. Substantively, it affirms a murder conviction based on strong forensic evidence and corroborated admissions, making clear that purposeful intent can be inferred from the brutality and mechanics of strangulation and head trauma. Procedurally, it offers important clarifications: strict fidelity to Rule 33.1’s requirements is non-negotiable—including for sentence enhancements—and appellate sufficiency arguments must mirror the trial record’s directed-verdict grounds. The opinion also provides a practical blueprint for trial judges managing gruesome photographic evidence and for law enforcement officers ensuring Miranda-compliant interrogations with suspects who report limited literacy.

For practitioners, the case is a reminder that procedural missteps can be outcome-determinative. Timely, specific, and renewed directed-verdict motions; careful suppression records; tailored Rule 403 balancing; and proactive mitigation discovery are indispensable to preserve and prevail on appeal. In this sense, the opinion’s most enduring contribution is its emphasis on preservation as the gateway to substantive appellate review.

Citation

Morgan Weatherford v. State of Arkansas, 2025 Ark. 150 (Ark. Oct. 16, 2025).