Opinion ID: 6110206
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: For his first point on appeal, appellant argues that [t]here was not substantial evidence that either of the alleged victims was under 14 years of age at the time of the alleged offenses. He takes issue with the fact that there was no evidence at trial regarding the date of birth of either victim and also argues that A.T., who was fifteen at the time of trial, was fourteen on the date of the alleged offense as charged in the information, which was less than a year before trial. This court reviews a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and we will affirm the circuit court's denial of a motion for directed verdict if there is substantial evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to support the jury's verdict. Williamson v. State , 2009 Ark. 568 , at 3, 350 S.W.3d 787 , 789. Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence and all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light most favorable to the State, without weighing it against conflicting evidence that may be favorable to the appellant and affirm the verdict if it is supported by substantial evidence. Id. In order to preserve a sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge on appeal, a timely, clear, and specific motion for directed verdict must be made to the trial court pursuant to Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c). Here, appellant argued in relevant part as follows: The defendant would move for a directed verdict on each count of rape. The state has failed to meet their burden. Specifically, they have failed to establish that the defendant, Michael Friday, engaged in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with a person under the 14 - under 14 years of age. There was inadequate testimony as to the age of the victims and the age of the victims at the time of the alleged sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity. .... Your Honor, it's the defendant's position there was never established dates of birth. They --. And defendant believes that's necessary to convict a person of rape under the age of 14. The circuit court denied the motion, and the defense rested without presenting any evidence. It is well established that the uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim alone is sufficient to sustain a conviction. See, e.g. , Ward v. State , 370 Ark. 398 , 400, 260 S.W.3d 292 , 294-95 (2007). Here, A.H. testified that she was five years old when appellant began raping her, and A.T. testified that appellant raped her when she was nine years old. There is no requirement under the statute, and appellant cites no authority for the proposition, that the birthdates of the victims must be established at trial. As for his argument that A.T. was fourteen on the date contained in the felony information, that argument was not made below and is therefore not preserved for appellate review. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1 (2017); Cockrell v. State , 2010 Ark. 258 , at 9, 370 S.W.3d 197 , 202 ([A] party cannot change the grounds for an objection on appeal but is bound by the scope and nature of the arguments presented at trial.). We affirm on this point.