Opinion ID: 6108092
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: An appeal from the denial of a motion for directed verdict is treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Brunson v. State , 368 Ark. 313 , 245 S.W.3d 132 (2006). Therefore, due to double-jeopardy concerns, we first address Taffner's argument that the circuit court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict. Hicks v. State , 2017 Ark. 262 , 526 S.W.3d 831 . Taffner argues that because MG was at least fourteen at the time of the alleged offense, the state failed to offer substantial evidence of forcible compulsion as required by Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-125 (a)(1) (Repl. 2013). That statute prohibits a person from engaging in sexual contact with another person by forcible compulsion. Sexual contact includes an act of sexual gratification involving the touching of the breast of a female. Ark. Code. Ann. § 5-14-101(10). Forcible compulsion is defined by Ark. Code. Ann. § 5-14-101(2) to include physical force or a threat, express or implied, of death or physical injury to or kidnapping of any person. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1 requires a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence to be made by a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the State's case-in-chief and at the close of the defense's case-in-chief. Rule 33.1 requires the motion to state the specific grounds therefor. Taffner moved for a directed verdict at both stages. However, Taffner did not argue a lack of evidence of forcible compulsion at the close of the State's case. The only argument he made with respect to MG was that she was not a credible witness. In fact, when he renewed his motion for a directed verdict at the close of the defense case, Taffner's attorney specifically said that he had a new argument. Taffner's attorney then went on to argue that there was no proof of a threat of serious bodily injury, death, or kidnapping of MG. The circuit court also recognized Taffner's new argument in denying the second motion. We agree that Taffner presented a new argument that the State failed to provide substantial  evidence of forcible compulsion and therefore hold that it was not preserved for review.