Title: Sherrill v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Jerry SHERRILL v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-335                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
              Opinion delivered September 25, 1997


1.   Criminal law -- rape -- testimony of victim need not be
     corroborated. -- The testimony of a rape victim does not have
     to be corroborated by other testimony; testimony of a child
     rape victim, showing penetration, need not be corroborated,
     nor is scientific evidence required. 

2.   Motions -- directed verdict properly denied -- evidence
     presented overwhelming and unrebutted. -- Where both child
     victims testified in vivid detail how their father, the
     appellant, fully penetrated their vaginas with his penis, and
     how he required them to perform oral sex on his penis, and the
     girls' brother also testified that on a number of occasions he
     had witnessed their father performing sexual acts with his
     sisters, the evidence presented at trial was overwhelming and
     unrebutted and clearly supported the rape convictions the jury
     rendered; the trial court's rulings denying appellant's
     motions for directed verdict were correct.

3.   Appeal & error -- litigant may not agree with ruling at trial
     and then attack it on appeal. -- Where, at trial, appellant's
     counsel abandoned appellant's request that a hypnotist be
     appointed as having no merit, and defense counsel did so even
     before the trial court denied appellant's request, appellant
     was precluded from arguing this point on appeal; a litigant
     may not agree with a ruling by the trial court and then attack
     that ruling on appeal. 

4.   Appeal & error -- no authority given for argument -- argument
     not reached. -- Where appellant cited no authority nor did he
     make a convincing argument in support of the issue, the
     supreme court declined to reach the merits of the argument. 


     Appeal from Saline Circuit Court; John W. Cole, Judge;
affirmed.
     Joe Kelly Hardin, for appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Sandy Moll, Asst. Att'y Gen.,
for appellee.

     Tom Glaze, Justice.
     Appellant Jerry Sherrill appeals his convictions for the rape
of his two biological daughters, R., age 12, and L., age 7.  On
appeal, he contends the trial court erred in denying his motions
for directed verdict concerning each daughter, and in doing so,
he argues that, in both cases, there is a lack of credible evidence
concerning the element of penetration.  Sherrill also asserts the
trial court erred in denying his request for a hypnotist.  We
affirm.
     Regarding his first contention, Ark. Code Ann.  5-14-
103(a)(3) (Repl. 1993), provides in pertinent part that a person
commits rape if he engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual
activity with another person who is less than fourteen years of
age.  Deviate sexual activity and sexual intercourse are defined in
Ark. Code Ann.  15-14-101(1)(A) and (B) and (9) (Repl. 1993) as
follows:
          (1)  "Deviate sexual activity" means any act of
     sexual gratification involving:
               (A)  the penetration, however slight, of the
     anus or mouth of one person by the penis of another
     person; or
               (B)  the penetration, however slight, of the
     vagina or anus of one person by any body member or
     foreign instrument manipulated by another person.
                     *          *          *
          (9)  "Sexual intercourse" means penetration, however
     slight, of a vagina by a penis.
Sherrill argues the evidence was insufficient to prove the rape
charges, particularly the key element of penetration, because there
was no medical or adult testimony to corroborate the testimonies of
R. and L.  As a consequence, he claims the jury could only
speculate regarding whether penetration occurred.  
     This court, of course, has repeatedly held that the testimony
of a rape victim does not have to be corroborated by other
testimony.  See Puckett v. State, 324 Ark. 81, 918 S.W.2d 707
(1996); Laughlin v. State, 316 Ark. 489,