Charles Henry Dobbins v. State of Arkansas ( 2024 )

Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 492ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-23-801
Opinion Delivered October 9, 2024
CHARLES HENRY DOBBINS
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE DREW COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. 22CR-22-209]
V.
HONORABLE ROBERT B. GIBSON III,
STATE OF ARKANSAS JUDGE
APPELLEE AFFIRMED
WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge
Charles Dobbins appeals a Drew County Circuit Court sentencing order convicting him
of second-degree sexual assault (Class B felony) and sentencing him as a habitual offender
pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-4-501(b) (Supp. 2023) to serve forty years in
prison and to pay a $15,000 fine. On appeal, Dobbins contends that the circuit court erred in
failing to grant his motion for directed verdict when there was insufficient evidence that the
victim identified him as the person who had sexually assaulted her. We affirm.
Dobbins was charged with rape and second-degree sexual assault. The testimony
presented at trial established that twelve-year-old MV was spending the night with her
grandmother, Virgie Smith, in July 2022. Smith testified that before she fell asleep, both MV
and her nephew, whom she identified as Dobbins,1 were in her home. Smith said she woke up
1
The record indicates that Dobbins was sixty-five years old at the time of trial.
and went to check to be sure the doors were locked. Smith saw a light on in a bedroom and
went to turn it off. When she entered the room, she saw MV standing by the bed and saw
Dobbins “fixing his belt . . . fixing his clothes on him . . . straightening his clothes,” which Smith
thought was unusual. Due to Dobbins’s demeanor, Smith thought he had been drinking. She
testified that she asked Dobbins what he was doing and told him he had to leave, explaining,
“[W]hat am I supposed to think, you know, a man and a woman in a room together, you know.”
Smith said Dobbins left without saying a word to her. Smith then asked MV what was “going
on.” As a result of her discussion with MV, Smith told MV to get her mother, who is Smith’s
daughter and who lived behind her.
Barbara Miller, MV’s mother, testified that she received a call from MV late that evening,
which prompted her go to Smith’s home. After speaking with MV, Miller filed a police report
and took MV to Arkansas Children’s Hospital (ACH).
Katlyn Davis, a nurse at ACH, testified that she was working in the emergency room on
July 12, 2022, when MV was brought in. Davis performed a rape-kit examination but did not
see any injuries on MV during the examination.
Monticello Police Officer Ben Hines testified that he participated in the investigations
of the rape and sexual-assault allegations involving MV. He retrieved the rape kit from ACH and
delivered it to the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory along with clothing collected and oral swabs
from both MV and Dobbins, which he also submitted to the crime lab. Hines did not notice
any injuries or bruising on MV when he interviewed her.
2
At trial, MV2 testified that that she is thirteen and recalled something happening at her
grandmother’s house, which resulted in her going to the hospital. MV testified that she was in
a bedroom by herself when a person, whom she identified as a “boy,” came into the bedroom.
Using anatomically correct dolls, MV demonstrated that the person touched her vagina with his
penis. MV said that she was lying on the bed when this occurred. MV answered affirmatively
when asked whether a penis went into her vagina. MV testified that her grandmother came into
the bedroom while she and the person were in the bedroom and that her grandmother saw the
person who was in the room.
On cross-examination, MV said that she never told the investigating officer that the
person’s penis touched her vagina but instead told the officer that the person used his fingers.
MV also acknowledged that she told police that the person held her down by her arms and neck
and tried to choke her. MV said that the person made her take her clothes off. She stated that
when her grandmother came into the room, she was lying on the bed.
Jonathan Kordsmeier, a forensic DNA analyst with the crime lab, testified that he
performed testing on the samples from MV’s vaginal swab and cuttings from her underwear. He
explained that the testing showed an “indication” of male DNA but that the male contributions
were not sufficient for autosomal processing, which means standard DNA analysis.
The State rested, and Dobbins moved for a directed verdict on both charges of rape and
sexual assault. Counsel argued, in part, that the State had “failed to make a prima facie case with
2
During the parties’ pretrial discussions with the court, voir dire, and opening statements,
MV was described as developmentally delayed—she has Down Syndrome and does not have
verbal skills commensurate with her age.
3
respect to the alleged victim. I don’t think there was any testimony elicited from the victim as to
the identity of the person allegedly engaged” in the rape and sexual assault. The circuit court
denied the motion.
Dobbins did not testify, the defense rested, and counsel renewed the motion for directed
verdict, which was denied. The case was submitted to the jury on both rape and sexual assault.
The jury convicted Dobbins of second-degree sexual assault. This appeal followed.
In reviewing the denial of a motion for directed verdict, we treat the motion as a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Goins v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 11, at 4, 568 S.W.3d
300, 303. When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court must view
the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports
the verdict. Bahena v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 261, at 2, 667 S.W.3d 553, 555. A conviction will
be affirmed if substantial evidence supports it. Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323, at 4, 588 S.W.3d 1,
4. Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable
certainty, compel a conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id., 588 S.W.3d
at 4. Witness credibility, the weight of the evidence, and the resolution of any conflicts or
inconsistencies in testimony or evidence are matters for the fact-finder. Thatcher v. State, 2023
Ark. App. 369, at 4, 675 S.W.3d 439, 442.
Dobbins argues that the circuit court erred when it failed to grant his motion for directed
verdict because there was insufficient evidence that MV identified him as the person who had
sexually assaulted her. We disagree.
A person commits second-degree sexual assault when he or she is eighteen years of age
or older and engages in sexual contact with another person who is less than fourteen years of
4
age. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-125(a)(3) (Supp. 2023). The supreme court has stated that it is
essential to every case that the defendant be shown as the one who committed the crime, and
we have further held that an element to be proved in every case is that the person who stands
before the court in the position of the defendant is the one whom the indictment or information
accuses and to whom the evidence is supposed to relate. Witcher v. State, 2010 Ark. 197, at 5,
362 S.W.3d 321, 324 (citing Standridge v. State, 357 Ark. 105, 113, 161 S.W.3d 815, 818 (2004)).
That connection, however, can be inferred from all the facts and circumstances that are in
evidence. Id., 362 S.W.3d at 324 (citing Womack v. State, 301 Ark. 193, 198–99, 783 S.W.2d 33,
36 (1990)).
Dobbins argues that the State’s proof of identity is insufficient because there was no
testimony by MV regarding a description of him, whether she knew him, or whether the person
who touched her was the same person whom her grandmother saw in the bedroom. Dobbins
also contends that the State failed to ask MV to “point out the person who sexually assaulted
her in court.” Dobbins further argues that Smith’s testimony was limited to her observation that
he was “fixing his clothes” and that MV was standing by the bed; Dobbins never admitted any
improper contact with MV; and there was insufficient male DNA for testing that would identify
Dobbins as having had sexual contact with MV.
An in-court identification of the defendant by the victim is not required. In Stewart v.
State, 88 Ark. App. 110, 113, 195 S.W.3d 385, 387 (2004), we stated that “[a]though the
identification of the defendant as the perpetrator of the crime is an element of every criminal
case, there is no requirement that the identification must be provided by the victim[.]” The
5
victim in Stewart was unable to identify appellant as the rapist at trial; however, we noted that
the victim did recognize the rapist at the time of the rape and that the rapist was her supervisor.
We concluded, “Given that there was other evidence to show that appellant was in fact the
victim’s supervisor at the time in question, we hold that the jury was not required to find that
the identification of appellant was patently unreliable, and that there is substantial evidence
identifying appellant as the rapist.” Id., 195 S.W.3d at 387.
Here, Smith testified that she walked into the bedroom where Dobbins and MV were
together and that Dobbins was “fixing his clothes” and fastening his belt. MV testified that she
was by herself in a bedroom when a person, whom she identified as a male, came into the room.
MV said that the person touched her vagina with his penis and that the individual was the one
whom Smith saw in the bedroom with MV. MV testified that the incident resulted in her being
taken to the hospital. Smith identified Dobbins in court as the person who was in the bedroom
with MV.
Considering the evidence presented, we hold that there is substantial evidence of
Dobbins’s identity as the perpetrator of the crime and affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
BARRETT and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Knutson Law Firm, by: Gregg A. Knutson, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: A. Evangeline Bacon, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
6