Court Opinion

ID: 9643207
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 20:21:59.667432+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:58.253287
License: Public Domain

Olly Neal, Judge, dissenting. I respectfully dissent from the decision affirming appellant’s rape conviction because I do not believe that the evidence identifying him as the rapist is sufficient. During her testimony, the victim said that the “Alexander Stewart” that raped her was the same man that she met on November 2 when she started working. However, when asked if she saw “Alexander Stewart” in the courtroom, the victim replied, “I do not see ‘Alexander Stewart’ in the courtroom today. I don’t think I see him. I met him on the second.” When asked during redirect if she saw “Alexander Stewart” in the courtroom, the victim testified as follows: I think I may see Alexander Stewart. I don’t know for sure what he looks like now. I knew what he looked like at that time, but I may see him when I happen to look over there. Well now, I just looked over there where she’s sitting at not long ago and that could be him sitting there. He looked different at the time. The uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim may constitute substantial evidence to sustain a conviction of rape. Hall v. State, 329 Ark. 567, 951 S.W.2d 557 (1997). This is especially true when the victim testifies as to the details of the rape and is able to identify the perpetrator. See Maulding v. State, 296 Ark. 328, 757 S.W.2d 916 (1988). Furthermore, when a witness makes a positive identification of a suspect, any challenge to the reliability of the identification becomes a matter of credibility for the factfinder to determine, and the factfinder’s decision wifi not be disturbed on appeal when there is substantial evidence to support it. Bowman v. State, 83 Ark. App. 223, 125 S.W.3d 833 (2003) (quoting Stipes v. State, 315 Ark. 719, 870 S.W.2d 388 (1994)). Here, the victim was unable to positively identify the perpetrator. The only person that was able to identify appellant as “Alexander Stewart” was Adrian Holloway. During her testimony, Ms. Holloway acknowledged that appellant was the victim’s immediate supervisor but said that appellant was not working at the time of the rape. I believe that without a positive identification or testimony placing the appellant on the scene at the time of the incident, the jury had to resort to speculation and conjecture. Therefore, I would reverse appellant’s rape conviction. However, I agree that due to the lesser burden of proof and the victim’s enhanced identification during the revocation hearing, the revocation of appellant’s probation was supported by substantial evidence. Thus, I would reverse appellant’s rape conviction and affirm the revocation of appellant’s probation.