Opinion ID: 2452839
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Conner raises four issues on appeal, including his third argument that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction of capital murder. As we have said previously, double jeopardy considerations require us to consider a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence prior to all other arguments asserted on appeal. Britt v. State, 334 Ark. 142, 982 S.W.2d 655 (1998); Welch v. State, 330 Ark. 158, 955 S.W.2d 181 (1997). At the conclusion of the State's case-in-chief, Conner made the following motion for a directed verdict: Your Honor, I would ask at this time since the State has rested, that a directed verdict be granted to the defendant. Based on the sum of the evidence presented, there would be no way that reasonable minds could differ as to the guilt or innocence of this defendant, and I ask for a directed verdict. At the conclusion of all evidence, Conner renewed his motion for a directed verdict with the following statement: Your Honor, at this time I would ask for a directed verdict based upon the evidence brought before the court, including the State's case in chief as well as the defense's presentation. There is no way reasonable minds could differ as to the guilt or innocence of Mr. Conner, and I would ask the Court direct a verdict. In order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellant must make a specific motion for a directed verdict which advises the trial court of the exact element of the crime that the State has failed to prove. Fultz v. State, 333 Ark. 586, 972 S.W.2d 222 (1998); Dulaney v. State, 327 Ark. 30, 937 S.W.2d 162 (1997). In contrast, a general motion that merely asserts that the State has failed to prove its case is inadequate to preserve the issue for appeal. See, e.g., Crisco v. State, 328 Ark. 388, 943 S.W.2d 582 (1997) (claiming that the State failed to prove a prima facie case); Lovelady v. State, 326 Ark. 196, 931 S.W.2d 430 (1996) (declaring that the State failed to meet its burden of proof). As in Crisco and Lovelady , Conner made a general motion for a directed verdict asserting that the State failed to prove its case. Accordingly, we hold that Conner's sufficiency challenge is not properly preserved for appeal.