Case Title: Carl Presley v. State of Arkansas

Citation: 

Docket Number: 

State: arkansas

Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Date: 2002-03-21T00:00:00Z

Document:
Derrick HARRELL and Carl Presley v. STATE of
Arkansas

CR 97-282                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 29, 1998


1.   Criminal law -- rape victim -- testimony need not be
     corroborated. -- The testimony of a rape victim does not have
     to be corroborated by other testimony.

2.   Evidence -- rape and kidnapping -- substantial proof that acts
     occurred. -- The State's evidence was unquestionably
     substantial in showing that the victim had been raped; also,
     her testimony, coupled with the examining physician's,
     sufficiently proved the crime of kidnapping. 

3.   Criminal law -- accomplice defined. -- An accomplice is one
     who directly participates in the commission of an offense or
     who, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the
     commission of an offense, solicits, advises, encourages, or
     coerces the other person to commit the offense, or aids,
     agrees to aid, or attempts to aid the other person in planning
     or committing the offense; the presence of an accused in the
     proximity of a crime, opportunity, and association with a
     person involved in the crime in a manner suggestive of joint
     participation are relevant facts in determining the connection
     of an accomplice with the crime.


4.   Motions -- directed verdict -- no error in denial of --
     evidence sufficient to show appellant aided in kidnapping. --
     The evidence showed that the first appellant aided in the
     kidnapping and rape of the victim, he was shown to have
     entered her house first while brandishing a gun, tackled her,
     and thereby permitted her to be restrained with duct tape on
     her arms and legs, and, along with the other two attackers,
     appellant threatened to kill her if she looked at them; with
     this substantial evidence bearing on appellant's participation
     in all the crimes with which the trio were charged, the
     supreme court could not say the trial court erred in denying
     appellant's motion for directed verdict.

5.   Constitutional law -- Brady Rule discussed -- rule includes
     impeachment as well as exculpatory evidence. -- In Brady v.
     Maryland,