Opinion ID: 2441272
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Travis initially challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. However, Travis has failed to preserve this issue for appellate review. At the close of the State's case, defense counsel moved as follows: In this case specifically, I guess, the State has failed to prove or to even show that there is any evidence to indicate that Phillip Travis specifically has engaged in any activity that would be constituted as rape and burglary in this matter. The trial court denied this motion, and the defense later renewed at the end of their case: Your honor, at this time I would like to renew my motion for directed verdict. Specifically that I stated, I don't believe the State's presented evidence to go to meet their burden on both counts of the residential burglary and the rape charge. Specifically I don't believe, other than some broad generalized statements made from [the victim], there's any other evidence at all connecting Phillip Travis to a crime. Again, this motion was denied. A directed-verdict motion based on insufficiency of the evidence must specify the respect in which the evidence is deficient. Ark. R.Crim. P. 33.1. As we stated in Walker v. State, 318 Ark. 107, 883 S.W.2d 831 (1994), a motion for a directed verdict in a criminal case must state the specific ground of the motion. This court has also explained that the proof of the element of the crime that is alleged to be missing must be specifically identified in a motion for directed verdict. Webb v. State, 327 Ark. 51, 938 S.W.2d 806 (1997); Lovelady v. State, 326 Ark. 196, 931 S.W.2d 430 (1996). In Webb, supra , the following motions were held to be general and thus insufficient for appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence: Your Honor, the defendant Anthony Webb would move for a directed verdict of acquittal, stating that the State has not provided a prima facie case of capital murder against Anthony Webb and makes a motion that the Court enter a finding of a directed verdict of acquittal on the charges of capital murder both as to Aurora Carney and James Graves and further wants to reallege and readopt the arguments and the contention about the admissions as previously made. Your Honor, at this time the defense would renew its motion for a directed verdict of acquittal indicating that the State has not provided prima facie evidence of the defendant's guilt of capital murder of either Aurora Carney or James Graves. Likewise, the following motion and renewal was rejected as nonspecific so as to preserve sufficiency for appellate review in Lovelady, supra : The defense would move that the charges against the defendant be dismissed on the basis that the State has failed to meet its burden of proof. The State cites to Helton v. State, 320 Ark. 352, 896 S.W.2d 887 (1995), where the following motions were not sufficiently specific: Make a motion at this time for a directed verdict on the charge of rape in that there's not been significant evidence which would lead to a conclusion by the jury that he's guilty of rape. The defense renews its motions for a directed verdict on the grounds previously stated. In the present case, Travis's directed verdict motions likewise failed to specifically identify the proof of the element of the crime that was alleged to be missing. We thus decline to reach the merits of Travis's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.