Opinion ID: 1722951
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficient evidence regarding k.h. and j.r.

Text: We begin by considering the sufficiency of the evidence relative to the two counts involving K.H., age eight, and J.R., age twelve. K.H. testified that she was eight years old and that Holloway had touched her private spot in front, which she called her PG, and her private spot in back, which she called her bottom. She added that Holloway told her not to tell, but she did complain to Peggy Holloway. The appellant urges that this testimony fails the test of sexual contact. With respect to J.R., age twelve, Holloway contends that she was indefinite about his touching her breasts. He points out that J.R. testified at the competency hearing that he came close but did not actually touch her breasts. The testimony reveals that J.R., who was twelve years old at trial and presumably ten years old two years earlier when the incident occurred, described the circumstances of the touching at trial: Q. Did he ever do anything to you?
Q. Will you tell the jury about that? A. I asked him. My back was itching one day, and I asked him to scratch it, and he did. And after a few minutes, I told him to stop, and he didn't. And then he started coming around, and he started rubbing at first under my shirt. And then he started coming around to my side, and then he started coming around to my breast area. Q. And what did he do? A. He started trying to feel or touch. Q. Did you have a shirt on? A. Yes. Q. Okay. Where was this in relation to your shirt? A. Up here (Indicating). Q. Was it on the inside or the outside of your shirt? A. Inside. Q. Okay. What did you do? A. I started to moving, and then I started to move. Then Peggy drove up, and he quit, because he said Peggy was here, and he quit. Q. Okay. Can you tell us more about that? What he did when his hand started coming around? A. He was rubbing, and he was trying to feel. Q. Okay. Can you tell the jury what he was trying to feel? A. He was trying to feel my breast. Q. Okay. And did he do that? A. He didn't get all the way around, but Peggy drove up before he could. Q. Okay. Did he touch your breast? A. He did kind of. Q. I need you toWhen you say kind of, what do you mean? A. He didn't get all the way around on it, but he got to the side. She then admitted that she was not wearing a bra at the time. On cross-examination, she repeated that he did touch her breasts, but said again that he did not get to the front but got to the side. She admitted that her breasts were not developed like a full grown lady. She said that she had testified that Holloway had not touched her breasts at the competency hearing because she was scared. The elements of sexual abuse in the first degree are fixed by statute: (a) A person commits sexual abuse in the first degree if: (3) Being eighteen (18) years old or older, he engages in sexual contact with a person not his spouse who is less than fourteen (14) years old. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-14-108(a)(3) (1987). Sexual contact is defined as any act of sexual gratification involving the touching, directly or through clothing, of the sex organs, or buttocks, or anus of a person or the breast of a female. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-14-101(8) (1987). The standard of review on appeal is whether there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict that the appellant touched these two girls for purposes of sexual gratification, viewing the evidence in the light more favorable to the state as appellee. See Green v. State, 310 Ark. 16, 832 S.W.2d 494 (1992). In the case of K.H., even though she used her own termsprivate spots and then bottom and PGthat is sufficient for a jury to believe that a sexual offense occurred, if she describes where those parts are. Stewart v. State, 297 Ark. 429, 762 S.W.2d 794 (1989). She did that in this case when she said her PG was in the front and her bottom was in the back. J.R. testified that the appellant touched her on the side of her breasts, and the jury was free to believe or disbelieve this testimony. They chose to believe it. In both cases, the touching of the body parts constituted sexual contact under the statute, and this court may assume that the appellant's purpose in touching the girls was for sexual gratification without specific proof that he was so motivated. See McGalliard v. State, 306 Ark. 181, 813 S.W.2d 768 (1991). We hold that sufficient evidence supporting the convictions existed on both counts.