Breedlove v. State, CA
| Decision Date | 17 June 1998 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 62 Ark.App. 219,970 S.W.2d 313 |
| Parties | Roy O. BREEDLOVE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. CR 97-1053. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Beverly C. Claunch, Heber Springs, for Appellant.
Winston Bryant, Atty. Gen., Sandy Moll, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for Appellee.
Roy O. Breedlove has appealed from his conviction of sexual abuse in the first degree. For reversal, appellant argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict and his motions for mistrial. We disagree and, therefore, affirm.
Breedlove was convicted of first-degree sexual abuse pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-14-108(a)(4) (Repl.1997). At the close of the State's evidence, Breedlove moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the State failed to prove that there was sexual gratification by sexual contact with the victim. The trial court denied Breedlove's motion. Breedlove renewed his motion at the close of all the evidence. This motion was also denied.
On appeal, Breedlove argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a directed verdict because there was insufficient evidence to support a conviction of first-degree sexual abuse. A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. See Williams v. State, 329 Ark. 8, 946 S.W.2d 678 (1997). On appeal, this court reviews the evidence in a light most favorable to the appellee, and affirms if substantial evidence supports the jury verdict, and only evidence supporting the guilty verdict need be considered. Martin v. State, 316 Ark. 715, 875 S.W.2d 81 (1994). Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other with reasonable certainty beyond mere suspicion or conjecture. Kennedy v. State, 49 Ark.App. 20, 894 S.W.2d 952 (1995).
As mentioned earlier, Breedlove moved for a directed verdict on the ground that the State failed to prove sexual gratification by sexual contact pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 5-14-108(a)(4) (Repl.1997). Breedlove based this motion on the fact that there was no testimony presented by the State as to Breedlove's demeanor or actions. However, on appeal, Breedlove argues that his motion should have been granted because the witnesses, particularly the six-year-old victim, were not credible and their testimony was insufficient to support the charge of first-degree sexual abuse. In fact, Breedlove has not raised the issue concerning sexual gratification by sexual contact on appeal. The issues appellant raises on appeal were not properly preserved for review because he did not present those arguments to the trial court, and we do not consider arguments raised for the first time on appeal. See Weaver v. State, 56 Ark.App. 104, 939 S.W.2d 316 (1997).
Next, Breedlove argues that the trial court erred by denying his motion for a mistrial because he was brought into the courtroom in view of the jury panel in handcuffs. Prior to jury selection, Breedlove moved for a mistrial on the ground that he was prejudiced because he was brought into the courtroom in cuffs in front of the jury panel. This argument, however, is unpersuasive.
A mistrial is a drastic remedy to which the court should resort only when there has been an error so prejudicial that justice cannot be served by continuing the trial or when the fundamental fairness of the trial itself has been manifestly affected. King v. State, 317 Ark. 293, 877 S.W.2d 583 (1994). The trial court has wide discretion in granting or denying a motion for a mistrial, and its discretion will not be disturbed except where there is an abuse of discretion or manifest prejudice to the complaining party. Id.
It is not prejudicial per se for a defendant to be brought into court handcuffed, and the defendant must affirmatively demonstrate prejudice. Williams v. State, 304 Ark. 218, 800 S.W.2d 713 (1990). In the present case, Breedlove was briefly brought into the courtroom with cuffs during the jury-selection process. There was no verification that any of the potential jurors saw the cuffs on Breedlove. The trial court also granted Breedlove's counsel the opportunity to ask the jury panel whether they made any kind of observation when appellant stepped in the room and whether anything they saw would affect their decision or affect their ability to be fair and impartial. Breedlove's counsel, however, chose not to ask any questions and did not pursue the matter any further. Thus, Breedlove has...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Brown v State
...not raise these specific objections below and wedecline to address issues raised for the first time on appeal. See Breedlove v. State, 62 Ark. App. 219, 970 S.W.2d 313 (1998). Sufficiency of the We do address, however, the sufficiency of the evidence as to serious physical injury as it rela......
-
Donovan v State
...sufficiency argument first. A motion for directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Breedlove v. State, 62 Ark. App. 219, 970 S.W.2d 313 (1998). This court affirms the conviction if it is supported by substantial evidence. Wilson v. State, 56 Ark. App. 47, 939 S.W.2......
-
Ashlock v. State
...juror can lay aside his impression or opinion and render a verdict based upon the evidence in court." Breedlove v. State, 62 Ark.App. 219, 223, 970 S.W.2d 313, 315 (1998). The trial court's decision will not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion. Id. Here, the juror was not polled or qu......
-
Bohanan v. State
...is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion with reasonable certainty, without resort to conjecture. Breedlove v. State, 62 Ark. App. 219, 970 S.W.2d 313 (1998). We review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, considering only the evidence that tends to support the v......