The Arkansas Court of Appeals on Wednesday upheld the conviction and prison sentence of a Pine Bluff man who contended that Circuit Judge Berlin C. Jones should have granted his motion for a directed verdict.
Sterling Armour, 47, was sentenced to a total of 35 years in prison after being convicted of aggravated residential burglary and one count of terroristic threatening, as well as a firearms enhancement that stemmed from an allegation that he forced his way into a home and threatened to kill a woman in 2014.
In a jury trial, a directed verdict is an order from the presiding judge to the jury to return a particular verdict. Typically, the judge orders a directed verdict after finding that no reasonable jury could reach a decision to the contrary.
According to the court ruling, Armour and another man, who was not identified during the trial, were looking for Ravern Charles, who had allegedly run into the other man’s car. At approximately 2 a.m., they went to home of a third person to find Charles, and a man there escorted the two to Charles’ home.
Armour and the other man entered the home, which was occupied by Charles’ wife and her five children.
Independent reporting for Pine Bluff & Jefferson County since 1879.
The woman testified at trial that she was awakened by Armour “tapping on her forehead with a gun.”
She said Armour grabbed her and threatened to kill her, and then dragged her outside the house, where he asked the other man if she was Charles’ wife. Armour and the two other men left, and the woman called police.
Armour first challenged the charge of aggravated residential burglary, contending that the evidence was not sufficient to prove that he entered the Charles’ home “with the purpose of committing an offense punishable by imprisonment” and contended that it was just as likely that he was there to demand money from Charles for the car repairs as he was to commit a violent act but the high court disagreed.
“Here the facts showed that Armour entered the home without permission in the middle of the night, armed with a gun that he brandished at [the woman] and threatened to kill her,” the ruling said. “From this evidence, the jury could reasonably have found that Armour entered the home with the intent to commit a felony, whether murder, aggravated assault, theft and other crimes punishable by imprisonment.”
Armour also contended that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of terroristic threatening, contending that the woman testified that he would “do her” and was “so vague in its use that a jury could only speculate as to its true intent.”
The court said the woman testified that not only did Armour threaten to “do her,” he also specifically threatened to kill her.
Armour is serving his sentence at the Tucker Unit, and according to the DOC website, will be eligible to apply for parole on Jan. 15, 2024.