APPEAL
FROM THE SALINE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 63CR-17-335]
HONORABLE GRISHAM PHILLIPS, JUDGE
Terry
Goodwin Jones, for appellant.
Leslie
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Rachel Kemp, Senior Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, JUDGE
Bruce
Wayne Devries was convicted by a Saline County jury of one
count of rape; one count of sexual assault; three counts of
video voyeurism; and thirty-two counts of distributing,
possessing, or viewing matter depicting sexually explicit
conduct involving a child. He was sentenced to forty
years' imprisonment for rape, twenty years'
imprisonment for sexual assault, six years' imprisonment
on each count of video voyeurism, and ten years'
imprisonment and a $10, 000 fine on each of the thirty-two
counts of distributing, possessing, or viewing matter
depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child. He
appeals his convictions, challenging the sufficiency of the
evidence to support his convictions and arguing that the
trial court erred in allowing one of the victims to testify.
We affirm.
I.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
Devries's
first argument is a challenge to the sufficiency of the
evidence of each of his convictions.[1] When reviewing a challenge
to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court assesses the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State and
considers only the evidence that supports the verdict.
Id. We test the sufficiency of the evidence to
determine whether the verdict is supported by substantial
evidence, direct or circumstantial. Wyles v. State,
368 Ark. 646, 249 S.W.3d 782 (2007); Boyd v. State,
2016 Ark.App. 407, 500 S.W.3d 772. Substantial evidence is
evidence that is of sufficient force and character that will,
with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the
other, without resorting to speculation or conjecture.
Hinton v. State, 2015 Ark. 479, 477 S.W.3d 517. With
these standards in mind, we consider the evidence presented
to the jury relating to each conviction.
A. Rape
and Sexual Assault
Devries's
first challenge is to the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his rape and sexual-assault
convictions.[2] He asserts that these crimes involved the
same victim, CC, [3] his now nineteen-year-old stepdaughter. At
trial, CC testified that Devries began sexually abusing her
when she was in fifth grade while they lived in Kansas, it
lasted through several interstate moves, and it continued
while they were living in Arkansas. CC testified that the
abuse included inappropriate touching and digital
penetration. CC admitted that she had originally accused her
biological father of being her abuser instead of Devries, but
she did so only because she was afraid of Devries. She
reported that Devries had threatened that she would be sent
to foster care away from her family and that he would hurt
her mother if she told what had happened between them.
Devries
argues that this evidence was insufficient to convict him of
either rape or sexual assault. He claims that because CC had
previously accused her biological father of abusing her and
then subsequently changed her story to identify him as the
abuser, she cannot be believed. While he admits that a rape
victim's testimony alone is sufficient to support a rape
conviction, he claims CC's credibility was
"nonexistent" and therefore cannot support a
conviction. We disagree.
Our
supreme court has held that the uncorroborated testimony of
the victim alone is sufficient to support a rape or
sexual-assault conviction. Vance v. State, 2011
Ark.App. 413. Devries essentially requests that we assess
CC's credibility. In a sufficiency analysis, we do not
assess the credibility of witnesses, as this is an issue for
the jury and not the court. Id. The trier of fact is
free to believe all or part of any witness's testimony
and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and
inconsistent evidence. Id. Moreover, we have clearly
stated that inconsistencies in the testimony of a rape victim
are matters of credibility for the jury to resolve, and it is
within the province of the jury to accept or reject testimony
as it sees fit. Perez v. State, 2016 Ark.App. 291,
494 S.W.3d 431. Here, the jury heard CC's testimony
regarding her claims against Devries as well as her
explanation as to why she had initially accused her
biological father. This inconsistency in her testimony was a
credibility determination best left for the jury to decide.
B.
Video Voyeurism
Devries
next challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support
his conviction of video voyeurism.[4] The victims of these crimes
are his adopted teenage daughters, AD and PD. AD was thirteen
and PD was twelve when they were adopted by Devries and
CC's mother.
At
trial, AD, who was sixteen at the time, testified generally
that Devries made her uncomfortable and made sexual remarks
all the time. Specifically, she observed him watching her
through the bathroom window when she was taking a shower, she
found a baby monitor in the corner of the bathroom and in her
bedroom, and she found holes in the walls ...