King v. State

Counsel

Hancock Law Firm, Little Rock, by: Charles D. Hancock, for appellant., Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee., Elaine testified that AF was often in and out of Charles's trailer. Elaine stated that there was a period of a few months when she was remodeling the bathroom in her trailer, and she and AF used the bathroom in Charles's trailer. Elaine further testified that AF was never alone with Charles at night except for on one occasion near the end of September 2016 when Elaine left AF in Charles's care because Elaine stayed the night at the hospital with Brittany, who was pregnant, after Brittany had been in a car accident., Melanie Sonnette Panell testified that she lives in Springfield, Missouri, with her husband Jarrod Panell. Sonnette has three children with Robert, who have been adopted by Jarrod. Elaine and AF lived with Sonnette and her family in Springfield from 2006 to 2009, and AF lived with Sonnette for a few months in 2015. After AF returned to Elaine in 2015, Sonnette filed for guardianship of AF based on allegations that Elaine and AF were living in a run-down trailer that did not have water or electricity and that Charles is an alcoholic. Sonnette testified that a decree denying her request for guardianship was entered in August 2016. After the 2016 decree was entered, Sonnette testified that there was no communication between Elaine and Sonnette or between Sonnette and AF., Sonnette also testified that Brittany and Robert told her about the allegations that Charles had sexually abused AF, and Sonnette immediately filed for emergency temporary guardianship of AF, which was granted on October 24, 2016. Sonnette has had custody of AF since that time.3, Ryan Watson, corporal investigator for the Boone County Sheriff's Office, testified that he met with Elaine and AF at the sheriff's office where Elaine reported that Charles had licked AF's "privates." Ryan arranged for Elaine and AF to be seen at Grandma's House Children's Advocacy Center (Grandma's House) where Ryan observed AF's interview. Thereafter, Ryan sought to interview Charles but could not locate him. Ryan testified that his department actively searched for Charles but was unable to locate him until October 25, 2016. When Charles was brought in for questioning, Charles denied the charges against him and claimed that Elaine had coached AF to make the sexual-abuse allegations. Nevertheless, Ryan believed that he had probable cause to arrest Charles and did arrest him., Charles's first point on appeal is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the rape conviction. Our standard of review for a sufficiency challenge is well settled. We treat a motion for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Price v. State , 2010 Ark. App. 111, at 8, 377 S.W.3d 324, 330 (citations omitted). In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. , 377 S.W.3d at 330-31. We affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Id. , 377 S.W.3d at 331. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable *567certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id. , 377 S.W.3d at 331., On appeal, Charles argues that the circuit court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict because, Charles's motions for directed verdict at trial, however, were much more limited in scope. He argued below that the State "failed to present evidence that would establish a prima facie case that there has been penetration of the minor child" and that the only evidence of deviant sexual activity was AF's inconsistent testimony as to whether Charles put his penis in her butt. A party cannot enlarge or change the grounds for an objection or motion on appeal but is bound by the scope and nature of the arguments made at trial. Daniels v. State , 2018 Ark. App. 334, at 5-6, 551 S.W.3d 428, 432. Therefore, we will address only those sufficiency arguments that Charles raised at trial in his motions for directed verdict; specifically, that there was no evidence of penetration and that AF's inconsistent testimony is insufficient to support deviate sexual activity., Charles argues that AF lacks credibility because she had a motive to lie about the sexual abuse so she could escape "a life of squalor" in a "dilapidated trailer park" with Elaine and instead live with Sonnette. The jury was presented with substantial evidence regarding the custody battle for AF between Elaine and Sonnette. It was up to the jury to determine the credibility of the witnesses, and resolutions of any inconsistent evidence are left to be made by the jury. Daniels , 2018 Ark. App. 334, at 6-7, 551 S.W.3d at 432. The jury is free to believe all or part of any witness's testimony. Id. at 7, 551 S.W.3d at 432; see also Weber v. State , 326 Ark. 564, 567, 933 S.W.2d 370, 372 (1996) (holding that an appellant's sufficiency argument that focused on the inconsistencies in the testimony of a child rape victim and her mother could have affected the jury's assessment of the credibility of the witnesses, but it did not provide a reason for the appellate court to hold that the circuit court erred in refusing to grant a directed verdict in favor of the appellant). In the case at bar, the jury chose to believe AF's testimony.