Cyril Gray III v. State of Arkansas

── Cyril Gray III v. State of Arkansas ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 13, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 293 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-25-710 CYRIL GRAY III Opinion Delivered May 13, 2026 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 26CR-24-984] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE RALPH C. OHM, APPELLEE JUDGE AFFIRMED RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge Cyril Gray III appeals his Garland County Circuit Court conviction for theft of property. On appeal, Gray argues that the circuit court erred by denying his directed-verdict motion, restricting his closing argument, permitting a witness to testify about the prosecutor’s opinion, and not finding prosecutorial misconduct. We affirm. On December 26, 2024, the State filed a criminal information charging Gray with theft of property over $5,000 but less than $25,000. The State alleged that between July 1, 2021, and August 22, 2024, Gray stole a 2011 Bayliner ski boat from Wesley Burnett. The case proceeded to a jury trial on July 7, 2025. At trial, Burnett testified he owned a 2011 Bayliner Bowrider boat and that in June 2021, the engine stopped working because the engine and manifolds were cracked. He explained that he contacted Gray about repairing the engine and manifolds and that in July, he transported the boat to Gray’s house for Gray to assess it for repairs. Burnett stated that in October, Gray told him that the repair costs would be $6,600 for parts and $1,200 for labor and that he could pay the labor costs when the job was completed. Burnett stated that in November, he paid Gray $6,600 in cash for the parts, including a new engine. Burnett explained that for almost three years, he communicated with Gray through text messages and phone calls about making the repairs. He testified that Gray sometimes responded that he was working on the boat, but Gray also frequently did not respond. The State introduced text messages between Burnett and Gray from 2021 through 2024. Burnett stated that in late 2023, he sent Gray a text message that stated, “This is getting pretty ridiculous. Actually, it’s well beyond ridiculous. I guess I’m gonna report the boat as stolen.” He stated that Gray responded, “That wouldn’t be a smart thing to do.” Burnett responded, “You had [the boat] for over two and a half years, and I’m tired of you ignoring my text and calls. So I’m done with it.” He further stated that in late 2023 and early 2024, he sent Gray multiple messages asking to pick up the boat, but Gray did not respond. Burnett explained that Gray never returned the boat, and after he reported the situation to the police, the police recovered the boat at Gray’s daughter’s house in August 2024. Burnett stated that he did not know the boat was at Gray’s daughter’s house, and he did not know where Gray’s daughter lived. He further stated that the boat was in bad condition and did not have an engine. During cross-examination, Gray’s counsel questioned Burnett about his insurance claim on the boat alleging theft, and counsel sought to introduce a letter from Burnett’s 2 insurance company, which denied coverage because the company found that the boat had not been stolen. The State objected to the introduction of the letter on the basis of hearsay and lack of authentication, and the court sustained the objection. Detective Matthew Cheatham testified that he worked in the property-crime division of the Hot Springs Police Department and that, in July 2024, he spoke with Burnett about his boat. He ex