ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ANDREE LAYTON ROAF, JUDGE DIVISION III

RANDY STATON

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR01-1227

SEPTEMBER 11, 2002

APPEAL FROM JEFFERSON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. A-00-25-2]

HONORABLE H.A. TAYLOR, JR., CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Randy Staton appeals from his conviction and fine for violating Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Regulation 20.28 (1999), which prohibits the use of all-terrain vehicles (ATV's) in designated portions of wildlife management areas. On appeal, Staton argues that his conviction is not supported by substantial evidence. We affirm.

On January 4, 2000, Staton was assisting Mr. Putoff, a person who held a mobility-impaired access permit issued by the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission, by driving an ATV on a duck hunt at the Wrape Plantation in Bayou Meto Wildlife Management Area. Staton had a helper's permit that allowed him to assist Putoff with access to hunting.

A Commission officer, Brent Staggs, was sent to the area the morning of January 4, because the Commission had been having trouble with vehicles riding on closed roads. Staggs noticed some tracks leading down a handicapped access road, and he drove down the road to find the people who were hunting. Approximately a half-mile down the access road, Staggs testified that he saw four-wheeler tracks veering off down a road that had three signs marking it as closed. Staggs testifiedthat the tracks appeared to be fresh and that they drove around one of the road closed signs. According to his testimony, Staggs stopped his vehicle and heard some people calling ducks down the road that was closed. Staggs waited until he heard a vehicle coming back down the road and saw Staton driving a four-wheeler, with Putoff and another person riding as passengers. Staggs stopped the vehicle and issued Staton a citation for riding an ATV on a closed road. Staton was found guilty of the violation in municipal court and fined $175. He appealed to circuit court, which affirmed Staton's conviction and fine.

Staton argues that his conviction for a violation of a regulation of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission is not supported by substantial evidence. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support a conviction for a violation of the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Regulations, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and will affirm if there is substantial evidence to support the conviction. Dennis v. State, 26 Ark. App. 294, 764 S.W.2d 466 (1989). Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character that it will compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture. Gregory v. State, 341 Ark. 243, 15 S.W.3d 690 (2000). For circumstantial evidence to constitute substantial evidence, the evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. Id. "Circumstances, however strong they may be, ought never to coerce the mind of the jury to a conclusion of guilt if they can be reconciled with the theory that one other than the defendant has committed the crime, or that no crime has been committed at all." Gregory, 341 Ark. at 248, 15 S.W.3d at 694 (quoting Bowie v. State, 185 Ark. 834, 49 S.W.2d 1049 (1932)). The question of whether circumstantial evidence excludes every other hypothesis consistent with innocence is for the fact finder to decide, and upon review, this court determines whether the fact finder engaged in speculation or conjecture in reaching its decision. Id.

Staton was convicted of violating Arkansas Game and Fish Commission Regulation 20.28 (1999), which states:

Exceptions:

(1) For authorized uses only.

Staggs testified that Putoff had a valid Mobility Impaired Access Permit and that Staton had a helper's license, which allowed Staton to assist Putoff. Thus, under the exceptions to Regulation 20.28, Staton was authorized to use the ATV to the extent allowed by the Commission's Mobility Impaired Access Policy. This policy, which was admitted into evidence, states that the ATV may only be used for travel on: (1) permanent all-weather roads; (2) designated temporary roads, logging roads, and trails; (3) travel off roads during modern gun deer season; (4) travel off roads for removal of game. The policy also states that there are handicapped access signs identifying which roads and trails are open for the use of persons with this permit.

According to Staggs's testimony, Staton was allowed to use the main road, which was designated by signs as a handicapped access road, but was not allowed to use the ATV on the side road because it was marked as closed. Staggs stated that this closed road could be used to retrieve game in accordance with the policy, but that Staton was not merely retrieving game, as Staggs heard people hunting down that road.

Staton asserts that Staggs only observed him driving the ATV on the closed road while hewas in the process of removing game, which is allowed under the policy. Staton argues that the circumstantial evidence presented to show that he was using the ATV on the closed road for purposes other than retrieving game does not constitute substantial evidence because the evidence does not exclude other reasonable hypotheses. We disagree.

Staggs testified that he arrived at the parking area and followed fresh tracks along the handicapped access road until the tracks veered off to the left down the road that was marked closed. While Staggs waited for the vehicle to come out, he heard people calling ducks and hunting down the closed road. Although Staton argues that there were two entrances to that road and that the evidence did not show that the ATV he was driving made those particular tracks, Staggs testified that the closed road led to a gravel road that was only accessible when the water was low. According to Staggs's testimony, the water was high on the day in question, and this other entrance would not have been accessible on an ATV. Staggs stated that he did not notice any other ATV tracks going down the closed road. Staggs then observed Staton driving out of the closed road with the ducks, stopped the ATV, and issued the citation.

While Staggs did not directly observe Staton's ATV enter the closed road or observe him hunting, these inferences were reasonably drawn by the trial court from the evidence presented, which is within the prerogative of the fact finder. Reams v. State, 45 Ark. App. 7, 870 S.W.2d 404 (1994). Eyewitness testimony is not required to establish guilt, and evidence of the defendant's guilt is not less because it is circumstantial. Gregory v. State, supra. As the trial court stated, the strong circumstantial evidence presented excluded every reasonable hypothesis other than that Staton drove the ATV down the closed road to hunt, not merely to retrieve his game. The trial court was not forced to resort to speculation or conjecture in reaching its decision, and the evidence supporting Staton's conviction is substantial.

Affirmed.

Griffen and Pittman, JJ., agree.