Court Opinion

ID: 9669100
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 02:39:29.185591+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:15:52.424972
License: Public Domain

Robert H. Dudley, Justice, dissenting. The difficulty in this case is caused by the formal charge. The State charged appellant with capital felony-murder by killing the victim while “in the course of or furtherance of’ the crime of rape. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101 (a)(1) (Supp. 1991). The State did not charge appellant with capital murder as the result of causing death with premeditation and deliberation. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-10-101 (a) (4) (Supp. 1991). Because of the charge filed the State had to prove the underlying felony of rape. There was insufficient evidence to prove that underlying felony, and, accordingly, I dissent from the affirmance of the conviction. The State’s proof was exactly as set out in the majority opinion. Appellant killed the victim by beating her about the head, breasts, abdomen, elbows, vagina, and anus with a blunt circular object one and one-half inches in diameter, something like a shovel handle. At some time during the series of murderous blows, appellant penetrated the victim’s vagina and anus with the circular object. The wounds to the head and abdomen were also penetrating. The majority opinion holds this proof constituted sufficient evidence of rape by deviate sexual activity. I cannot agree. Deviate sexual activity is “any act of sexual gratification involving the penetration... of the vagina or anus. . . by a. . . foreign instrument.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101 (1)(B) (1987) (emphasis added). It is necessary that the State prove the penetration of the vagina or anus was done for sexual gratification. McGalliard v. State, 306 Ark. 181, 813 S.W.2d 768. (1991). Such proof could have been by either direct or - circumstantial evidence. Here, there was no direct proof. The proof is wholly circumstantial, but the proof is that blows to the head, abdomen, vagina, and anus were all penetrating blows. The penetrating blows to the vagina and anus might have been inflicted for the purpose of sexual gratification, but it is just as likely that they were inflicted for the purpose of murder since all of the blows were administered in the same manner and with the same object. Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to constitute substantial evidence. Hooks v. State, 303 Ark. 236, 795 S.W.2d 56 (1990). However, for circumstantial evidence to constitute sufficient evidence to sustain a conviction, it must be consistent with guilt of the defendant, and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Gillie v. State, 305 Ark. 296, 808 S. W.2d 320 (1991). The circumstantial evidence of rape in this case in not inconsistent with another reasonable conclusion. Here, it is just as likely that appellant administered the penetrating blows for the purpose of murder as it is that he administered them for the purpose of sexual gratification. Accordingly, in conformity with our long-established case law, I would hold that the State did not offer sufficient circumstantial evidence to convict appellant of killing another while “in the course of or furtherance of’ the crime of rape. I dissent. Holt, C.J., joins in this dissent.