D.D. v. State
| Decision Date | 07 November 2012 |
| Docket Number | No. CA12-254,CA12-254 |
| Citation | 2012 Ark. App. 637 |
| Parties | D.D. APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
D.D. was charged as a juvenile in an amended delinquency petition with three counts of sexual assault in the second degree, all Class B felonies.1 In a bench trial held on December 22, 2011, he was adjudicated delinquent on all three counts. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motions for directed verdict because the victims' testimony was not credible; the testimony was inherently improbable and/or physically impossible; and there was no additional evidence supporting the victims' testimony. We affirm the delinquency adjudications.
There are three victims in this case—C.M., K.F., and S.G., all three of whom attended Vista Health Therapeutic Day Treatment (school) with D.D. C.M., who was eighteen at the time of trial, testified that she attended school with D.D. in the summer and fall of 2011, and although she was not in the same class as D.D., she knew him. She said that she and D.D. rode the school van home during the summer and that while she never sat by D.D., she frequently sat in front of him in the afternoons on the way home. She testified that D.D. made her uncomfortable when she sat in front of him because he sucked on her neck, touched her breasts and vagina, and showed her his penis. She said that he touched her vagina and breasts under her clothes, and that he made her touch his penis through his clothing. C.M. said that when D.D. touched her, he used his right hand and reached around the seat, and that it happened on probably five different occasions. She said that the van driver and the school aide did not see anything because they were not paying attention, and that the person with whom she was sitting did not see anything because he was asleep. C.M. stated that she told her mother and her therapist at school about the incidents, but that she had to wait to tell her therapist until the therapist returned from vacation.
K.F., who was fifteen at the time of trial, testified that she and D.D. attended school in the summer and fall of 2011, but they first met in the hospital about a year earlier and began dating. She said that the reason they broke up was because D.D. ran his hands up and down her leg, which made her uncomfortable because she had been raped by her biological father, and because of her history with her father, she was "totally afraid"of any male touching her. She said that she and D.D. tried to be friends, but that he was "too comfortable" with her and kept grabbing her buttocks and her breast area. K.F. said that D.D. never touched her crotch area, but that he would run his hands up and down her legs; that the touching was strictly over the clothes; that it occurred both at school and at her house; and that when it occurred at school, it was under the table where no one could see. She also recounted one time in her backyard where D.D. attempted to kiss her, but she said that she told him no and to go away and that he left. K.F. said that she did not tell anyone at first, but that she eventually told one of her counselors. She was surprised that D.D. claimed that she touched him as well and that the touches were consensual, and she denied that she touched D.D., that she consensually allowed D.D. to touch her, or that she was falsely accusing D.D.
S.G., who was sixteen at the time of trial, testified that she had known D.D. for six or seven years; that she had attended a previous school with him as well as having attended the current school with him in the summer of 2011; and that D.D. had formerly been her boyfriend. She said that they remained friends after they broke up, but that since they had broken up, D.D. had touched her inappropriately. S.G. related that on one occasion while she and D.D. were alone at an abandoned house, D.D. touched her butt and her breasts. S.G. said that D.D. wanted to have sex, but when she told him no, he kept forcing the issue and held her so that she could not leave or walk away. She said that D.D. kept touching her breasts and buttocks over her clothes; that it made her feel "veryweirded out" and she told him to "please stop"; that he did not say anything and continued to touch her; and that she pushed him off, ran downstairs, and left. She said that she began to walk home but that D.D. gave her his bike to ride as an apology, and she wrecked the bike on the way home.
Detective Keith Eoff of the Rogers Police Department testified that he investigated the allegations and interviewed all three victims and D.D. He testified that no one on the van saw anything happen between C.M. and D.D.; that one of the teachers at school told him that K.F. and D.D. had previously dated; and that S.G.'s mother corroborated what S.G. had said about the bike wreck. Eoff said that when he interviewed D.D., he denied that anything had occurred with C.M. While he admitted that he had rubbed K.F.'s leg in class and had kissed her in her backyard, D.D. said that it was all consensual. Likewise, while D.D. corroborated S.G.'s story, he maintained that it was all consensual. D.D. denied doing anything illegal or inappropriate, and he postulated that C.M. was lying because she had asked him out and he had told her no.
D.D.'s attorney moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the stories told by the victims were not credible. The trial court denied the motion.
D.D. called witnesses in his defense. Ray Zamen, one of the van drivers/aides for the school, testified that seats were not assigned on the van; that both C.M. and D.D. rode the van; that he did not remember any problems between C.M. and D.D.; and that henever saw any interaction out of the ordinary between the two of them. Zamen said that school policy did not allow males and females to sit in the same row.
Freddie Hall (also known as Mr. Wayne) testified that he was a teacher at the school, that D.D. and K.F. had been his students, and that C.M. and S.G. were in the class next to him. Hall said that he was aware that D.D. and K.F. had a previous relationship; however, he denied that any of the girls had talked to him about anything that happened to them at school. Hall said that D.D. had never offended any of the females in his classroom, and most of the time D.D. was asleep in the back of the room. Hall testified that K.F. had said that she wanted to stay away from D.D.
D.D., who was sixteen at the time of trial, testified that nothing happened between him and C.M. on the van; that C.M. had asked him out and he told her that he was not interested; and that her testimony was not true. With regard to K.F., D.D. admitted that they had met in the hospital; that he had been to her house once or twice; that he had tried to kiss her at her house in the backyard on...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
K.A.S. v. State
...theft and adjudicated him a delinquent. A motion for directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. D.D. v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 637, at 7. In juvenile cases, the sufficiency-of-the-evidence standard is the same as that used in criminal cases. A.F. v. State, 2010 Ark. ......