Hicks v. State , 2013 Ark. App. 439 ( 2013 )


Menu:
  •                                  Cite as 
    2013 Ark. App. 439
    ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
    DIVISION III
    CR-12-980
    No.
    Opinion Delivered   AUGUST 28, 2013
    CHARLES R. HICKS
    APPELLANT          APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
    COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
    V.                                               FOURTH DIVISION
    [NO. CR-10-1267]
    STATE OF ARKANSAS
    APPELLEE        HONORABLE HERBERT WRIGHT,
    JUDGE
    AFFIRMED
    BILL H. WALMSLEY, Judge
    Appellant Charles Hicks was convicted by a jury of the rape of S.H. On appeal, he
    challenges the sufficiency of the evidence that supported his conviction. We affirm.
    In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in the light
    most favorable to the State, considering only that evidence that supports the verdict. Purdie
    v. State, 
    2010 Ark. App. 658
    , 
    379 S.W.3d 541
    . We determine whether the verdict is
    supported by substantial evidence, which is evidence of sufficient force and character to
    compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture.
    Id. A person commits the crime of rape if he engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual
    activity with another person who is less than fourteen years of age. Ark. Code Ann. §
    5-14-103(a)(3)(A) (Supp. 2011). “Deviate sexual activity” includes any act of sexual
    gratification involving the penetration, however slight, of the anus or mouth of a person by
    Cite as 
    2013 Ark. App. 439
    the penis of another person. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(1)(A) (Supp. 2011).
    Appellant challenges only the evidence that S.H. was under the age of fourteen at the
    time of the alleged rape. He notes that she qualified some of her testimony with “maybe” and
    “probably,” and he asserts that the jury was left to speculate as to her age at the time of the
    acts.
    The rape was alleged to have occurred between July 21, 2006, and March 21, 2007,
    S.H.’s fourteenth birthday. Appellant had been around S.H. virtually her whole life due to
    his relationship with S.H.’s mother. S.H. testified that appellant first began touching her
    inappropriately when she was “maybe seven.”             She said that the touching eventually
    progressed to oral sex and sexual intercourse when she was “maybe thirteen” and “probably
    in the eighth grade.” She then clarified that the oral sex began before the seventh grade,
    when she would have been twelve years old, and it continued after she turned thirteen years
    old and they began having sexual intercourse.
    The uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim is sufficient to support a conviction if
    the testimony satisfies the statutory elements of rape. Williams v. State, 
    363 Ark. 395
    , 
    214 S.W.3d 829
     (2005). Our supreme court has held that the fact that the victim is not absolutely
    certain of the date of the offense does not in any way lessen the proof, as that is an issue of
    credibility. Id. It is well settled that this court will not weigh the credibility of the witnesses,
    as that is a determination for the jury. Id.
    We hold that S.H.’s testimony provided substantial evidence that appellant engaged
    in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with her when she was less than fourteen years
    2
    Cite as 
    2013 Ark. App. 439
    old. We affirm appellant’s conviction.
    Affirmed.
    GLADWIN, C.J., and HARRISON, J., agree.
    The Jesse Law Firm, P.L.C., by: Mark Alan Jesse, for appellant.
    Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca B. Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
    3
    

Document Info

Docket Number: CR-12-980

Citation Numbers: 2013 Ark. App. 439

Judges: Bill H. Walmsley

Filed Date: 8/28/2013

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 3/3/2016