Opinion ID: 1496105
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Failure to grant motion for directed verdictSufficiency of the evidence

Text: We first address Clark's claim that the trial court erred in refusing to grant his requests for directed verdict as to the two counts of rape as it involves a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence which must be considered prior to a review of trial errors. Thomas v. State, 312 Ark. 158, 847 S.W.2d 695 (1993). Since sufficiency of the evidence of the sexual misconduct charge has not been challenged, we will not address this issue. Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-14-103 (Supp.1993) defines rape as: (a) A person commits rape if he engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person: (3) Who is less than fourteen (14) years of age. It is an affirmative defense to prosecution under this subdivision that the actor was not more than two (2) years older than the victim. The legislature has defined deviate sexual activity as: (A) The penetration, however slight, of the anus or mouth of one person by the penis of another; or (B) The penetration, however slight of the vagina or anus of one person by any body member of foreign instrument manipulated by another person. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-14-101(1) (1987). On appeal from the denial of a directed verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the verdict is sought and affirm if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict. Davis v. State, 308 Ark. 481, 825 S.W.2d 584 (1992); Traylor v. State, 304 Ark. 174, 801 S.W.2d 267 (1990). Substantial evidence has been defined as being of sufficient force and character to compel a conclusion one way or the other, forcing the mind to pass beyond suspicion or conjecture. Davis, supra .
Reviewing the evidence that Clark raped the five-year-old female, we hold that the evidence was more than sufficient. The five-year old specifically testified that Ron hurt me and that he touched her in a bad place. She also indicated that Clark had touched her between her legs with his tongue. In addition, Dr. Hill's testimony revealed that the five-year-old had a healing scar and an abnormal mound or rolled edge on her hymen as well as chlamydia, a sexually transmitted disease, all of which are consistent with sexual abuse. The four-year-old was more detailed in her testimony regarding Clark's rape of her five-year-old sister: Q. Did you ever see him touch [her]? A. (Affirmative nod.) Q. What did you see him do to [her]? A. Sticked the screwdriver in her private part. Q. And, is her private part the same place yours is? A. Yes. . . . . . Q. When he touched [her], did he touch her with anything else? A. Nail. Q. And, where did he touch her with the nail? A. (Witness points.) Q. Did he ever touch her with any part of his body? A. His tongue. Q. Where did he put his tongue? A. (Witness points.)
During her testimony, the five-year-old also discussed Clark's rape of her four-year-old sister: Q. And, when you saw him touch [her], was it in a good or a bad place? A. Bad place. . . . . . Q. Did [she] have her clothes on? A. (negative nod) In addition, the four-year-old described Clark's rape of her, explaining: Q. Did anything ever bad happen to you when you were living with Ron? A. (Affirmative nod.) Q. What happened to you? A. Sticked this screwdriver in my private part. We have held that the testimony of the victim which shows penetration is enough for conviction. Jackson v. State, 290 Ark. 375, 720 S.W.2d 282 (1986). Although the victim's testimony need not be corroborated Jackson, supra , we have the four- and five-year-old's testimony corroborating each other's testimony. Clark makes much of the inconsistencies in the older girls' testimony regarding whether their clothing was on or off when he was allegedly raping them. Inconsistencies in the testimony are for the jury to resolve. Curtis v. State, 301 Ark. 208, 783 S.W.2d 47 (1990). Clearly, this evidence is sufficient to support the rape convictions.