Christin Helms v. State of Arkansas

── Christin Helms v. State of Arkansas ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 20, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 342 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-25-666 Opinion Delivered May 20, 2026 CHRISTIN HELMS APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT V. [NO. 16JCR-21-488] STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED KENNETH S. HIXSON, Judge Appellant Christin Helms was convicted in a jury trial of criminal attempt to commit first-degree murder and first-degree endangering the welfare of a minor, and she was sentenced to consecutive prison terms of thirty years and six years. The victim was Helms’s twelve-year-old daughter, MV, who testified that Helms was driving her car with MV as a passenger when she became angry with MV because MV had lost Helms’s wallet, after which Helms tried to kill them both by intentionally swerving off the road and crashing into a tree. On appeal, Helms argues that there was insufficient evidence to support either conviction. We affirm. I. Applicable Law and Standard of Review Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-10-102(a)(2) (Supp. 2025), a person commits first-degree murder if, with the purpose of causing the death of another person, the person causes the death of another person. A person attempts to commit an offense if he or she purposely engages in conduct that constitutes a substantial step in a course of conduct intended to culminate in the commission of an offense whether or not the attendant circumstances are as the person believes them to be. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-3-201(a)(2) (Repl. 2024). Pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-27-205(a)(1) (Repl. 2024), a person commits first-degree endangering the welfare of a minor if, being a parent, he or she purposely engages in conduct creating a substantial risk of death or serious physical injury to a minor. In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we assess the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Armstrong v. State, 2020 Ark. 309, 607 S.W.3d 491. We will affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence that is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id. Circumstantial evidence may provide a basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Collins v. State, 2021 Ark. 35, 617 S.W.3d 701. Whether the evidence excludes every other hypothesis is left to the jury to decide. Id. Further, the credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury, not the court; the trier of fact is free to believe all or part of any witness’s testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. Armstrong, supra. II. Relevant Facts 2  In March 2021, Helms and MV were living in a house with several people, which included Helms’s longtime boyfriend, Cameron Stricklin, and Helms’s other two children. At the time, Helms and Stricklin were both unemployed. On March 9, 2021, Helms drove her 2005 Jeep Liberty to Sam’s Club, with MV riding as a passenger, to buy groceries. After buying groceries, they returned to the parking lot, and Helms handed MV her wallet as Helms put the groceries in the car. As the gr