Opinion ID: 1619107
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: We view the evidence most favorably to the appellee, and the identification testimony of a rape victim is sufficient to support a conviction. Maulding v. State, 296 Ark. 328, 757 S.W.2d 916 (1988). Scientific evidence is not required. Cope v. State, 292 Ark. 391, 730 S.W.2d 242 (1987). At some points in his testimony the victim said he did not know who the man in the mask was, but he had reached the conclusion, based on the scatological language used by the masked man that he was the same person as the one on the four-wheeler; the man who raped him had the same kind of mind as the man on the four-wheeler. White argues the victim's voice identification was equivocal and thus not sufficient to support the conviction, but we note this portion of the victim's testimony: It is the guy on the four-wheeler, Loyd, Loyd Ray White. I'm referring to the Defendant. That's the man who held me at gunpoint and raped me, that's what I think. I do not really have any doubts about that. We regard the voice identification as sufficient. Any inconsistencies there may have been in the victim's testimony were for the jury to resolve. Cope v. State, supra .