Opinion ID: 1767064
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Denial of Strong's Directed-Verdict Motions

Text: Counsel asserts that Strong's directed-verdict motions were properly denied. This ruling is also discussed in Strong's pro se points for reversal and in the State's response. Thus, we will consider those arguments at this time as well. Although this ruling was not the first addressed by counsel or by Strong, double jeopardy considerations require this court to review a directed-verdict argument before other points are addressed. See Ramaker v. State, 345 Ark. 225, 46 S.W.3d 519 (2001). We treat a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Cluck v. State, 365 Ark. 166, 226 S.W.3d 780 (2006). This court has repeatedly held that in reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. We affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Id. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id. Furthermore, circumstantial evidence may provide a basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Id. Whether the evidence excludes every other hypothesis is left to the jury to decide. Id. The credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury and not the court. Id. The trier of fact is free to believe all or part of any witness's testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. Id. We conclude that substantial evidence supports Strong's convictions. He was charged with two counts of rape under Ark.Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(4)(A)(i) (Repl.2006): A person commits rape if he or she engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person who is less than eighteen years of age and the actor is the victim's guardian. Thus, a conviction would require proof that K.M. was less than eighteen years of age, that Strong was her guardian, and that Strong engaged in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with her. We have held in rape cases that a victim's uncorroborated testimony is sufficient to support a conviction if the statutory elements of the offense are satisfied. Pinder v. State, 357 Ark. 275, 166 S.W.3d 49 (2004). Even when an appellant denies all of the allegations or contradicts the victim's testimony, the jury is free to disbelieve the appellant's self-serving testimony and believe the victim's testimony instead. Id. K.M.'s testimony that she was fifteen years of age at the time of the two charged rapes, that she grew up in Strong's home and considered him her father, and that Strong engaged in sexual intercourse with her is sufficient to support the rape convictions. Moreover, K.M.'s testimony was corroborated by other reliable evidence. The forensic DNA analyst's testimony that the semen found on the sock and the underwear matched the DNA sample provided by Strong, along with the nurse practitioner's testimony that K.M.'s injuries were consistent with sexual abuse, provide proof beyond K.M.'s testimony. Additionally, other witnesses, such as Bertie Theodoropoulos and Nic Khan, testified as to Strong's opportunities to engage in sexual intercourse with K.M. Clearly, the evidence supporting Strong's convictions is substantial. The directed-verdict motions made at trial were premised on the argument that the State failed to prove forcible compulsion. However, proof of forcible compulsion is not required when the victim is less than eighteen years of age and the actor is the victim's guardian. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(4)(A)(i). Therefore, that motion was properly denied. In his pro se points for reversal, Strong argues that the evidence was generally insufficient. He points out that he offered an explanation as to why his semen was found on the sock and the underwear. [1] However, as we have stated, the jury was free to disregard Strong's testimony. Pinder v. State, supra . Strong also notes that the State did not provide medical reports showing K.M.'s injuries, but it is clear that such proof was not required in this situation. K.M.'s uncorroborated testimony would have been sufficient, and the testimony of the nurse practitioner as to K.M.'s injuries further supports the jury's determination. Id. Thus, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in denying Strong's motions for a directed verdict. An appeal of these rulings would be wholly without merit.