Opinion ID: 1768772
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: The third of the four arguments raised in appellant's brief is that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict. This argument is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Lukach v. State, 310 Ark. 119, 835 S.W.2d 852 (1992). Preservation of an appellant's right to freedom from double jeopardy requires a review of the sufficiency of the evidence prior to a review of trial errors. Id.; Harris v. State, 284 Ark. 247, 681 S.W.2d 334 (1984). Appellant moved for a directed verdict at the close of the state's case and again at the close of all the evidence. Both motions, however, were general motions and did not state a specific basis for the motion. The first motion did not even state that it was based on insufficiency of the evidence. [PROSECUTOR]: The state rests, your Honor. THE COURT: All right. [DEFENSE]: Your Honor, I move for a directed verdict. THE COURT: That will be denied. [DEFENSE]: I call Gary Lawrence. The second motion was simply a renewal of the first motion, although counsel and the court did engage in a review of some of the evidence. This court has stated repeatedly that a motion for directed verdict is treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and therefore requires that the movant apprise the trial court of the specific basis on which the motion is made. See, e.g., Campbell v. State, 319 Ark. 332, 891 S.W.2d 55 (1995); Walker v. State, 318 Ark. 107, 883 S.W.2d 831 (1994); Brown v. State, 316 Ark. 724, 875 S.W.2d 828 (1994). This court has held [i]f a motion for directed verdict is general and does not specify a basis for the motion, it will be insufficient to preserve a specific argument for appellate review. Walker, 318 Ark. at 109, 883 S.W.2d at 832. In so holding, this court reasoned that `when specific grounds are stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the trial court can either grant the motion, or, if justice requires, allow the State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof.' Id. at 109, 883 S.W.2d at 832, (quoting Brown, 316 Ark. at 726, 875 S.W.2d at 830). The motions made by appellant in the instant case were wholly inadequate to apprise the trial court of the basis of the motion. Indeed, no basis was given at all. Appellant has therefore not preserved this argument on appeal.