FROM THE FAULKNER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 23CR-2014-505]
HONORABLE CHARLES E. CLAWSON, JR., JUDGE AFFIRMED
Jonathan T. Lane, for appellant.
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Amanda Jegley, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Shaun Allen was convicted by a Faulkner County jury of two
counts of rape. On appeal, he contends that the circuit court
abused its discretion and committed reversible error by
admitting into evidence prior consistent statements of the
victim, M.R. He also argues that the circuit court erred in
denying his motions for directed verdict on both counts of
rape. We affirm.
motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the
sufficiency of the evidence, Steele v. State, 2014
Ark.App. 257, 434 S.W.3d 424, and although this is
Allen's second point on appeal, double-jeopardy
considerations require this court to consider a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence before the other issues on
appeal. See Jones v. State, 340 Ark. 331, 78 S.W.3d
the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged on appeal from
a criminal conviction, we consider only that proof that
supports the conviction. Singleton-Harris v. State,
2014 Ark.App. 436, 439 S.W.3d 720. We view that evidence and
all reasonable inferences deducible therefrom in the light
most favorable to the State. Davis v. State, 2011
Ark.App. 261, 378 S.W.3d 873. We will affirm if the finding
of guilt is supported by substantial evidence. Id.
Evidence is substantial if it is of sufficient force and
character to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion
and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture. Clayton v.
State, 2011 Ark.App. 692. The jury is free to believe
all or part of a witness's testimony, and we do not weigh
the credibility of witnesses on appeal, as that is a job for
the fact-finder and not the appellate court. Sizemore v.
State, 2015 Ark.App. 295, 462 S.W.3d 364.
person commits rape if "he engages in sexual intercourse
or deviate sexual activity with another person who is less
than fourteen (14) years of age." Ark. Code Ann. §
5-14-103(a)(3)(A) (Repl. 2013). Sexual intercourse is
penetration, however slight, of the labia majora by a penis.
See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(11). Deviate
sexual activity is defined by statute as any act of sexual
gratification involving (A) the penetration, however slight,
of the anus or mouth of a person by the penis of another
person; or (B) the penetration, however slight, of the labia
majora or anus of a person by any body member or foreign
instrument manipulated by another person. Ark. Code Ann.
the evidence, as we must, in the light most favorable to the
State, the record reflects that Allen is M.R.'s
stepfather's brother. Twelve-year-old M.R. testified at
trial that Allen "put his middle in my middle."
When asked by the State to clarify what middle part she was
talking about, M.R. stated that Allen "put his middle
part where he pees from into my middle part where I pee
from." M.R. also testified that she saw both Allen and
Ronald White's "middle" and that they differed
in length and width.
argued in his motion for directed verdict that M.R. never
testified that he put his penis or any other part of his body
into her vagina. However, M.R.'s use and description of
the word "middle" demonstrated knowledge of the
location of the penis and the vagina on the human body. A
child victim's use of her own terms for body parts,
rather than the correct anatomical terms, is sufficient
evidence if it demonstrates a knowledge of what those body
parts are and where they are located on the body. Tinsley
v. State, 338 Ark. 342, 346, 993 S.W.2d 898, 900 (1999).
also claims that M.R. was unable to give a full and detailed
account of his actions, and therefore, there was insufficient
proof that he had raped her. But, in rape cases, the
requirement of substantial evidence is satisfied by the rape
victim's testimony. Bishop v. State, 310 Ark.
479, 484, 839 S.W.2d 6, 9 (1992). The uncorroborated
testimony of a rape victim that shows penetration is
sufficient evidence for a conviction. Lamb v. State,
372 Ark. 277, 282, 275 S.W.3d 144, 148 (2008). M.R. testified
that Allen molested her when she was ten years old, which was
sufficient to satisfy the statutory element requiring that
the victim be less than fourteen years old.
asked by the State what she meant when she said Allen
"molested" her, she replied that he "had sex
with me." She then elaborated as to what she meant by
having "sex with me, " and replied that Allen
"put his middle part where he pees from into my middle
part where I pee from." As noted above, it was
established that M.R.'s terms "his middle"
refers to Allen's penis and "my middle" refers
to M.R.'s vagina.
rape victim's testimony need not be corroborated by
forensic evidence, additional evidence was introduced during
trial that supported her testimony. Semen was found on
M.R.'s panties, and forensic DNA analyst Sarah Stoeckel
gave expert testimony that established, within all scientific
certainty, that the DNA on the panties belonged to Allen.
testimony, corroborated by forensic expert testimony, is more
than substantial evidence to show that Allen raped her. The
jury was not required to resort to speculation or ...