Opinion ID: 1716455
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We have recently repeated our guidelines for reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence in Pike v. State, 323 Ark. 56, 912 S.W.2d 431 (1996): In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and sustains the judgment of conviction if there is substantial evidence to support it. Abdullah v. State, 301 Ark. 235, 783 S.W.2d 58 (1990). Evidence is substantial if it is of sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture. Williams v. State, 298 Ark. 484, 768 S.W.2d 539 (1989). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we need only consider evidence in support of the conviction. Id. Slip op. at 4 at 60, 912 S.W.2d at 433, citing Mills v. State, 322 Ark. 647, 654, 910 S.W.2d 682, 686 (1995). Specifically, Mosley contends that the State failed to prove an element of the rape charge, namely forcible compulsion. Rape is defined in Ark.Code Ann. § 5-14-103 (Repl.1993), in pertinent part, as follows: (a) A person commits rape if he engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person; (1) By forcible compulsion[.] Forcible compulsion is defined as physical force, express or implied, of death or physical injury to or kidnapping of any person. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(2) (Repl.1993). We have defined physical force as any bodily impact, restraint or confinement, or the threat thereof. Dillon v. State, 317 Ark. 384, 877 S.W.2d 915 (1994); citing Strawhacker v. State, 304 Ark. 726, 804 S.W.2d 720 (1991). The test for determining whether there was force is whether the act was against the will of the party upon whom the act was committed. Caldwell v. State, 319 Ark. 243, 891 S.W.2d 42 (1995); Spencer v. State, 255 Ark. 258, 499 S.W.2d 856 (1973). In this case, there was substantial evidence of forcible compulsion. Sherry's graphic description of the incident need not be repeated. Indeed, the victim's testimony alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction for rape. See Laughlin v. State, 316 Ark. 489, 872 S.W.2d 848 (1994). Her account clearly met the test of showing that the act was committed against her will. In addition to the victim's testimony, the State offered the testimony of Nurse Keck, Dr. Shelby, and Officer DeArman, all of whom described the victim's injuries and emotional state on the date in question. Such evidence corroborates Sherry's version of the incident. Mosley claims that the State's evidence was insufficient to prove forcible compulsion because the victim's injuries could have been caused either by a physical fight she had earlier that night with her boyfriend, or by the recent delivery of her child. However, the victim denied that either she or her boyfriend had hit the other. Moreover, Dr. Shelby testified that superficial tears to the victim's vagina were unrelated to the delivery of her child, and, that, in his opinion, there were a lot of signs of forced sexual intercourse. The jury is free to believe all or part of a witness's testimony. Pike v. State, supra ; State v. Long, 311 Ark. 248, 844 S.W.2d 302 (1992). The jury obviously believed the medical testimony and that of the victim over Mosley's version of the events. In sum, the State presented sufficient evidence of forcible compulsion.