Moppin v. State ( 2016 )

Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 114
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-15-797
JAMES ANDREW MOPPIN Opinion Delivered February 24, 2016
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE BOONE
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 05CR-13-286-4]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE GORDON WEBB,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
Appellant James Andrew Moppin was charged with domestic battery in the second
degree in the Boone County Circuit Court. A jury convicted him of the lesser offense of
domestic battery in the third degree. Moppin was placed on probation for one year, ordered
to serve twenty days in the county jail, and fined $600. On appeal, he argues that the circuit
court erred by denying his motion for directed verdict because the State did not prove he
knew the victim was sixty years of age or older and that the circuit court erred by overruling
his objection to the State’s closing argument. Moppin asserts that the State improperly argued
that he had the burden of proof on the issue of whether he knew the victim was sixty years
old or older. We affirm.
At trial, evidence was presented that Rodney McCullough is Moppin’s father-in-law.
McCullough and Moppin, along with Moppin’s nuclear family, lived together in a small
trailer in Omaha, Arkansas. On September 26, 2013, Moppin returned home after four or
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 114
five days away to find his pet rats dead and outside on the front porch. Moppin was furious
and told McCullough he needed to move out immediately. Moppin then proceeded to beat
McCullough; ultimately, McCullough had to be air lifted by helicopter from the hospital in
Harrison to a Springfield, Missouri, hospital, where he was admitted overnight with serious
injuries.
A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Jackson
v. State, 375 Ark. 321, 324–25, 290 S.W.3d 574, 577 (2009). We do not address Moppin’s
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence because it is not preserved for our review. At the
close of the State’s case, Moppin made a motion for a directed verdict as to the domestic-
battery charge, but he did not renew it at the close of all the evidence, as required by Rule
33.1(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. The failure of a defendant to challenge
the sufficiency of the evidence at the times and in the manner required in subsection (a) will
constitute a waiver of any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence to support
the verdict or judgment. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c) (2015).
Moppin’s second point on appeal is without merit. Moppin argues that in the State’s
closing argument, the State improperly shifted the burden of proof to him, forcing him to put
on evidence that he did not know that the victim was sixty years of age. However, this is not
an element of the crime for which Moppin was convicted. The jury found Moppin guilty
only of domestic battering in the third degree, not domestic battering in the second degree.
As such, he was not prejudiced by any asserted error relating to the domestic battering in the
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 114
second degree. See Hickson v. State, 312 Ark. 171, 847 S.W.2d 691 (1993). We therefore
affirm Moppin’s conviction.
Affirmed.
HARRISON and GLOVER, JJ., agree.
Potts Law Office, by: Gary W. Potts, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Bailey Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3