Case Title: Rawls v. State

Citation: 

Docket Number: CR96-322

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 1997-01-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
O.C. RAWLS v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 96-322                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 21, 1997


1.   Evidence -- inconsistencies in testimony do not cause proof to
     be insufficient as matter of law -- testimony of one
     eyewitness is sufficient to sustain a conviction. --
     Inconsistencies in testimony do not cause proof to be
     insufficient as a matter of law; evidence is not considered to
     be insufficient for presentation to a jury when there is
     "unequivocal testimony identifying an accused as the
     offender"; the testimony of one eyewitness is sufficient to
     sustain a conviction.

2.   Evidence -- eyewitness unequivocally identified appellant --
     evidence sufficient to sustain jury's verdict with respect to
     delivery conviction. -- Where a detective was an eyewitness
     whose testimony was unequivocal in identifying appellant as
     the person from whom she purchased the cocaine, and two other
     detectives also positively identified him as the person they
     saw sell the substance, the evidence was sufficient to sustain
     the jury's verdict and the judgment with respect to the
     delivery conviction.

3.    Evidence -- accused placed own character in issue with
     testimony of witness -- State properly allowed to offer other
     evidence of character. -- Where the questions and responses of
     appellant's own witness clearly placed in issue the character
     of the accused, the prosecutor, pursuant to Ark. R. Evid.
     404(a), was properly permitted to offer other evidence of
     appellant's character to rebut the character evidence offered
     by the defense; a criminal defendant who presents a character
     witness opens the door that would otherwise be closed. 


     Appeal from Pulaski Circuit Court; John Plegge, Judge;
affirmed.
     William C. McArthur, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  J. Brent Standridge, Asst.
Att'y Gen., for appellee.

     David Newbern, Justice.
     O.C. Rawls was convicted of delivery of cocaine and possession
of marijuana.  Ark. Code Ann.  5-64-401 (Supp. 1995).  He was
sentenced as an habitual offender to imprisonment for sixty years
on the delivery count and one year and a $1000 fine on the
possession count.  Defense counsel moved for a directed verdict at
the conclusion of the State's evidence, citing inconsistencies and
alleged deficiencies in the proof concerning delivery of cocaine
and contending marijuana would not have been found but for the
unproven allegation of delivery of cocaine.  Mr. Rawls contends the
Trial Court erred in overruling his directed-verdict motion.  He
also argues error in the Trial Court's allowance of cross-
examination of a defense witness with respect to Mr. Rawls's past
criminal history.  We hold the evidence was sufficient to go to the
jury and that the evidence of prior offenses was properly admitted
into evidence in response to character evidence introduced by the
defense.
     Three undercover detectives drove to a corner where they were
approached by Mr. Rawls.  Detective Trotter testified that she
asked him what he had, to which he replied asking what she needed. 
She said she needed a "twenty."  Mr. Rawls handed her an off-white,
rock-like substance, later identified as cocaine.  She handed him
a twenty-dollar bill.
     After the three officers left, other officers with whom the
three were in radio contact appeared and arrested Mr. Rawls on the
basis of a description provided by Detective Trotter.  They were
unable to find the twenty-dollar bill but did find in Mr. Rawls's
pocket a cigarette containing marijuana and cocaine.

                 1. Sufficiency of the evidence
     There was some confusion about the date of the transaction in
the testimony of the detectives, and there was some variance in the
descriptions they gave of the clothing Mr. Rawls wore on that date.
     Inconsistencies in testimony do not cause proof to be
insufficient as a matter of law.  Gray v. State, 318 Ark. 601, 602,
888 S.W.2d 302,