Craig v. State — Arkansas appeals court upholds revocation for choking girlfriend

Case
Noah Kristopher Craig v. State of Arkansas
Court
Arkansas Court of Appeals, Division II
Judge
Stephanie Potter Barrett; Robert J. Gladwin; J. M. Tucker
Date Decided
September 9, 2026
Docket No.
CR-25-755
Topics
probation revocation; domestic violence; aggravated assault; sufficiency of evidence
Source
Read the full opinion

Background

Noah Kristopher Craig received a ten-year suspended imposition of sentence after his 2019 convictions for accomplice to aggravated residential burglary and second-degree battery. A condition of the suspension was that he not violate any law.

The State sought revocation after an October 1, 2024 incident involving Craig and his then-girlfriend, Brittany Smart. Smart testified that Craig grabbed and choked her, at one point preventing her from breathing, threw her to the ground, struck her, and threatened to kill her. A responding deputy found Smart distraught with red marks around her neck and obtained her account of the incident.

The Court’s Holding

The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the revocation and Craig’s resulting ten-year prison sentence. The court held that the State proved by a preponderance of the evidence that Craig committed aggravated assault on a family or household member, violating the no-new-offenses condition of his suspended sentence.

Smart’s testimony that Craig applied pressure to her neck and prevented her from breathing satisfied Arkansas’s aggravated-assault statute. The court rejected Craig’s argument that the circumstances did not show extreme indifference to human life because Smart defended herself and did not lose consciousness. It deferred to the circuit court’s credibility findings and concluded that revocation was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence.

Key Takeaways

  • A suspended sentence may be revoked upon proof by a preponderance that the defendant inexcusably violated a condition.
  • Choking a household member so that the person cannot breathe can establish aggravated assault on a family or household member.
  • A victim’s ability to resist or remaining conscious does not foreclose a finding of extreme indifference to human life.

Why It Matters

The decision underscores the lower evidentiary burden in revocation proceedings and the appellate deference given to trial courts on witness credibility. It also confirms that evidence of impeded breathing during a domestic assault can support revocation based on aggravated assault.

✉️ Get tomorrow’s cases before your first coffee
Daily Case Law is our free morning digest — the most substantive new decisions, filtered to your jurisdictions and topics, each linking back here for the full analysis.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Scroll to Top