Opinion ID: 3172998
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Directed Verdict—Intent

Text: Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in denying his motion for directed verdict on the charge of first-degree murder because the State failed to establish that he possessed the intent to purposely cause the death of another. The State contends that appellant’s pro se sufficiency challenge is barred because appellant has changed the nature of 3 Over defense counsel’s hearsay objections, the circuit court allowed Satterwhite’s testimony about her conversations with Wild Bill and Frank. Because this testimony was not offered for the truth of the matter asserted, the circuit court did not err in overruling the objections. We agree with counsel’s assertion that we do not consider appellant’s pro se posttrial motions because they are not preserved or our review. Appellant filed the pro se motions after the notice of appeal had been filed, and the circuit court did not rule on the motions. Even assuming the pro se motions were deemed denied by operation of law, see Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(b)(1), appellant did not file an amended notice of appeal to appeal the denial of those motions, see Ark. R. App. P.–Crim. 2(b)(2). 9 Cite as 2016 Ark. 20 his sufficiency argument on appeal. We agree. At trial, appellant argued that there was no credible evidence presented in the State’s case for the charges to be maintained. On appeal, however, appellant contends that the State failed to prove that he intended to purposely cause the death of P.J. A party is not permitted to change the scope and nature of a directedverdict motion on appeal. See Lamb v. State, 372 Ark. 277, 279, 275 S.W.3d 144, 146 (2008). B. Jury Instruction—Extreme-Emotional-Disturbance Manslaughter Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in refusing to instruct the jury on extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter. At trial, appellant requested jury instructions for the lesser-included offenses of second-degree murder and reckless manslaughter. Appellant did not, however, request an instruction for extreme-emotional-disturbance manslaughter.4 Consequently, we do not address appellant’s contention on appeal. See, e.g., White v. State, 370 Ark. 284, 294, 259 S.W.3d 410, 417 (2001) (stating that appellant’s failure to request a jury instruction at trial precludes our review because we do not address issues raised for the first time on appeal).