Opinion ID: 2365384
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Smallwood first argues that there is insufficient evidence to support his convictions for rape and burglary. At the close of the State's case, Smallwood said: Judge, may I let the record reflect that I move for a directed verdict at the end of the State's case? The court denied the motion. At the close of all evidence, Smallwood renewed his motion by stating: Will the Court let the record reflect that my motion is renewed? Again, the motion was denied. A motion for directed verdict is treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence and requires the movant to apprise the trial court of the specific basis on which the motion is made. Stewart v. State, 320 Ark. 75, 894 S.W.2d 930 (1995). This court has said on numerous occasions that since the adoption of the Ark. R.Crim. P. 36.21(b), a general motion is insufficient to preserve a defendant's argument that the statutory elements of the crime were not proven. Id. Because he failed to properly preserve the issue, Smallwood is procedurally barred from challenging the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. Whitney v. State, 326 Ark. 206, 930 S.W.2d 343 (1996).