Opinion ID: 1685933
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sexual Gratification

Text: Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because there was insufficient proof to support a finding that appellant committed the underlying felony of rape. Specifically, appellant argues the state failed to prove the penetration of the victim's vagina and anus was done for the purpose of sexual gratification as required by Ark.Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(1) (1987). The state contends appellant's argument was not preserved for appellate review because appellant did not specify the basis for his objection in the trial court. At the close of all the evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict based on the fact that there is no showing of a rape. Appellant stated in his motion that the basis was the state's failure to prove rape. This was sufficient to apprise the trial court appellant was arguing the state failed to prove the elements of rape. Sexual gratification is an element of rape. Therefore, appellant's argument was preserved for appeal. Appellant argues the state failed to prove the penetration of the victim's vagina and anus was done for the purpose of sexual gratification as required under the statute. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(1). Section 5-14-103(a)(1) provides in pertinent part: A person commits rape if he engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person: By forcible compulsion[.] Deviate sexual activity is defined in pertinent part as: any act of sexual gratification involving: The penetration, however slight, of the vagina or anus of one person by any body member or foreign instrument manipulated by another person[.] Ark.Code Ann. § 5-14-101(1)(B) (1987). Sexual gratification is not defined in the statute, but we have construed the words in accordance with their reasonable and commonly accepted meanings. McGalliard v. State, 306 Ark. 181, 813 S.W.2d 768 (1991). We have held it is not necessary for the state to provide direct proof that an act is done for sexual gratification if it can be assumed that the desire for sexual gratification is a plausible reason for the act. McGalliard v. State, 306 Ark. 181, 813 S.W.2d 768; see also Holbert v. State, 308 Ark. 672, 826 S.W.2d 284 (1992). We have previously stated that when persons, other than physicians or other persons for legitimate medical reasons, insert something in another person's vagina or anus, it is not necessary that the state provide direct proof that the act was done for sexual gratification. Williams v. State, 298 Ark. 317, 321, 766 S.W.2d 931, 934 (1989). Appellant argues that our interpretation of sexual gratification in this manner does not reflect the will of the legislature, which has never defined sexual gratification nor changed the definition of deviate sexual activity despite many opportunities to do so. The legislature has also had several opportunities to define sexual gratification since the Williams case was decided and has not chosen to do so. Therefore, following Williams , McGalliard and Holbert , the state had sufficient proof to support the charge of rape and the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for a directed verdict.