Opinion ID: 2170937
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Martin first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict on the charges of rape and first-degree violation of a minor. Particularly, he contends that there was insufficient evidence that any act of rape occurred on the dates charged in the information, September 1, 1996, and April 5, 1998. As for the charge of first-degree violation of a minor, Martin contends that the evidence was insufficient to show that he was this child's guardian, or a temporary caretaker, or a person in a position of trust or authority over the child. We find no merit to either argument. We treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Mills v. State, 351 Ark. 523, 95 S.W.3d 796 (2003); Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415, 17 S.W.3d 61, cert. denied, 531 U.S. 998, 121 S.Ct. 495, 148 L.Ed.2d 466 (2000). The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id. 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. Id. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, considering only that evidence that supports the verdict. Id. With this standard in mind, we review the evidence in this case. Cassy testified at trial that Martin began having sexual intercourse with her in the summer of 1996, when she was twelve years old and had just completed the sixth grade. On that occasion, Cassy was lying on her bed when Martin came in, pulled down her pants, and started rubbing his penis on her. She stated that she told him not to put it in, but he did it anyway. She stated further that she tried to get up, but he would not let her. The last time that Cassy and Martin had intercourse was on February 17, 2001, four days before she reported the abuse to her school counselor. On that date, she stated that she was washing dishes when Martin came up behind her and put his hands on her vagina. They then went into her bedroom, where Martin took down her pants and had sex with her for ten or fifteen minutes. She testified that Martin called that a quickie. Between the first and last times, Cassy stated that Martin routinely had sex with her. She explained: At first, it was about once a week, and that went on for about a month or two, and then it was every time my mom went to work. She then reiterated that Martin had sex with her while she was in the seventh, eighth, ninth, tenth, and eleventh grades. She stated that they had sex in her bedroom, in her mother's bedroom, in Martin's truck, and in the barn. She stated that the last time they had sex it was in her bedroom. In addition to Cassy's testimony, the State presented evidence from Melissa Myhand, an analyst employed by the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory. Myhand stated that she had conducted DNA testing on a fitted sheet taken from Cassy's bed during the police search. Myhand stated that she found a semen stain on the sheet that had the same markers as the blood sample submitted by Martin. She stated that the probability of selecting another person at random from the general population that had the same markers was approximately 1 in 528 million in the Caucasian population. Myhand also tested semen stains from the comforter and quilt taken from Cassy's bedroom and they matched Martin's DNA. For these items, Myhand stated that the probability of selecting another person at random from the general population that had the same markers was approximately 1 in 36 million in the Caucasian population. Martin argues that despite the foregoing testimony, the evidence was insufficient to demonstrate that any act of rape occurred on the two dates listed in the amended information. The State contends that the exact dates of the offenses are immaterial in this case, because the proof clearly shows that Martin had sexual intercourse with Cassy while she was under the age of fourteen. We agree with the State. Generally, the time a crime is alleged to have occurred is not of critical significance, unless the date is material to the offense. See Ark.Code Ann. § 16-85-405(d) (1987); Wilson v. State, 320 Ark. 707, 898 S.W.2d 469 (1995); Harris v. State, 320 Ark. 677, 899 S.W.2d 459 (1995); Fry v. State, 309 Ark. 316, 829 S.W.2d 415 (1992). That is particularly true with sexual crimes against children and infants. Id. at 317, 829 S.W.2d at 416. Any discrepancies in the evidence concerning the date of the offense are for the jury to resolve. Wilson, 320 Ark. 707, 898 S.W.2d 469 (citing Yates v. State, 301 Ark. 424, 785 S.W.2d 199 (1990)). In cases of rape, the evidence is sufficient if the victim gave a full and detailed accounting of the defendant's actions. Id. Moreover, where the defense is that the sexual acts never occurred and were entirely fabricated, the lack of exact dates are not prejudicial to the defendant. See Harris, 320 Ark. 677, 899 S.W.2d 459; Fry, 309 Ark. 316, 829 S.W.2d 415. Martin was charged with a single count of rape, for which the prosecutor alleged two approximate dates in the information. The dates were apparently derived from the victim's testimony. The first date, September 1, 1996, coincides with the victim's testimony that the first act of sexual intercourse occurred in the summer of 1996, when she was twelve years old and had just finished the sixth grade. The second date offered by the prosecution, April 5, 1998, is the last date for which the charge of statutory rape would be applicable, as the victim turned fourteen years old on April 6, 1998. In using this latter date, it appears that the prosecutor was attempting to demonstrate a range of time during which the acts of rape occurred. Again, this is consistent with the victim's testimony that for a month or two after the first time, Martin had sex with her about once a week and, thereafter, every time her mother was at work. Martin's defense was that he did not commit the crimes, and that the victim had fabricated the events in order to get him removed from the home. Given this defense, the exact dates of the sexual acts were immaterial to the offenses, and Martin suffered no prejudice. More importantly, the victim gave a full and detailed account of Martin's actions, and her testimony alone constitutes substantial evidence to support the rape conviction. See Mills, 351 Ark. 523, 95 S.W.3d 796; Butler v. State, 349 Ark. 252, 82 S.W.3d 152 (2002); Spencer v. State, 348 Ark. 230, 72 S.W.3d 461 (2002). Accordingly, we reject Martin's argument on this point. Likewise, we reject Martin's argument that the evidence was insufficient to convict him of the offense of first-degree violation of a minor. He argues that the State failed to prove that he was the child's guardian or temporary caretaker, or that he occupied a position of trust or authority over the victim. The statute under which he was convicted, Ark.Code Ann. § 5-14-120 (Repl.1997) [1] , provided in part: (a) A person commits the offense of violation of a minor in the first degree if he engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person not his spouse who is more than thirteen (13) years of age and less than eighteen (18) years of age, and the actor is the minor's guardian, an employee in the minor's school or school district, a temporary caretaker, or a person in a position of trust or authority of the minor. Contrary to Martin's argument, the evidence clearly demonstrated that he occupied a position of trust or authority over Cassy during the time that he lived with her and her mother. Several witnesses, including Martin, testified that he had repeatedly disciplined Cassy because of her poor grades at school. Moreover, Cassy testified that she had a close relationship with Martin during the years that he lived with her and her mother. She also stated that she called Martin Daddy, and that she considered him to be her father. This evidence is sufficient to support the conclusion that Martin was either Cassy's guardian [2] or was, at least, a person in a position of trust or authority over the minor girl. We thus affirm the trial court's denial of a directed verdict.