Sera v State, 98-1222

• Decision Date: 25 May 2000
• Docket Number: 98-1222
• Citation: 17 S.W.3d 61
• Parties: Steven Anthony SERA v. STATE of Arkansas CR 98-1222 ___ S.W.3d ___ Opinion delivered
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Steven Anthony SERA v STATE of Arkansas

CR 98-1222 ___ S.W.3d ___

Opinion delivered May 25, 2000

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Appeal from Bradley Circuit Court; Sam Pope, Judge; affirmed.

1. Motions -- directed verdict -- challenge to sufficiency of evidence. -- A directed-verdict motion is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence.

2. Evidence -- sufficiency of -- considered on appeal before other errors. --The supreme court considers the sufficiency of the evidence before addressing other alleged trial errors.

3. Evidence -- sufficiency of -- test for determining. -- The test for determining sufficiency of the evidence is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict.

4. Evidence -- appellate review -- substantial evidence defined. -- On appeal, the supreme court will review the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and sustain the conviction if there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict; evidence is substantial if it is of sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture; only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered.

5. Evidence -- circumstantial evidence -- test for sufficiency. -- The supreme court will make no distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence when reviewing for sufficiency of the evidence; however, for circumstantial evidence to be sufficient, it must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence; whether the evidence excludes every hypothesis is left to the jury to determine.

6. Evidence -- circumstantial evidence -- guilt may be proved by. -- Guilt may be proved in the absence of eyewitness testimony, and evidence of guilt is not less because it is circumstantial.

7. Evidence -- Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) -- trial court's discretion. -- The admission or rejection of evidence under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) is committed to the sound discretion of the trial court, and the supreme court will not reverse absent a showing of manifest abuse; correspondingly, the trial court has the discretion to determine whether prejudicial evidence substantially outweighs its probative value, and its judgment will be upheld absent a manifest abuse of discretion.

8. Statutes -- constitutionality -- presumption favoring. -- The state's statutes are presumed constitutional, and the burden of proving otherwise is placed on the party challenging the legislative enactment; the supreme court resolves all doubts in favor of a statute's constitutionality.

9. Criminal law -- rape-shield statute -- when ruling of admissibility overturned. -- A ruling of admissibility under the rape-shield statute will not be overturned absent clear error or a manifest abuse of discretion.

10. Evidence -- expert testimony -- abuse-of-discretion standard. -- The admission of expert testimony under Ark. R. Evid. 702 is reviewed under an abuse-of-discretion standard.

11. Evidence -- hearsay -- abuse-of-discretion standard. -- The supreme court will not reverse a trial court's ruling on a hearsay question unless the appellant can demonstrate an abuse of discretion.

12. Evidence -- admission -- abuse-of-discretion standard. -- The supreme court will not reverse the trial court's ruling on the admission of evidence absent an abuse of discretion.

13. Evidence -- sufficiency of -- preservation of issue. -- To preserve sufficiency of evidence as an issue for appellate review, it must be raised at the close of the State's case and renewed at the close of all the evidence.

14. Motions -- directed verdict -- sufficiency challenge not preserved where appellant failed to raise kidnapping count in initial motion. -- Where appellant failed to raise count four, concerning kidnapping, in his initial directed-verdict motion, the sufficiency challenge was not preserved.

15. Evidence -- sufficiency of -- evidence on counts three & five sufficient. --Regarding the sufficiency of the evidence on counts three and five, which concerned administering of a controlled substance and engaging in sexual intercourse of deviate sexual activity with a victim when she was incapable of consent due to her unknowing ingestion of drugs, the supreme court held the evidence to be sufficient; the evidence was not such that the jury was reduced to mere speculation and conjecture.

16. Witnesses -- credibility -- issue for jury. -- The trier of fact is free to believe all or part of a witness's testimony; the credibility of witnesses is an issue for the jury and not for the supreme court; the jury may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence and may choose to believe the State's account of the facts rather than the defendant's.

17. Evidence -- Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) -- list of exceptions to "other crimes" exclusion represents examples. -- The list of exceptions to the general exclusion of "other crimes" under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) is not exclusive but instead represents examples of circumstances where other acts are admissible and relevant.

18. Evidence -- Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) -- evidence must be independently relevant. -- Under Ark. R. Evid. 403, evidence of prior crimes, wrongs, or acts, even if admissible under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b), will not be admitted if the admission of such evidence is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice; to be admissible under Rule 404(b), the evidence must be independently relevant to the main issue, i.e., relevant in the sense of tending to prove some material point rather than merely to prove that the defendant is a criminal; if relevant, evidence of that conduct may be admissible with a proper cautionary instruction by the court; if the appellant did not ask for a cautionary instruction, he can claim no error on appeal; in addition, the prior uncharged act to be admitted must have a very high degree of similarity with the charged crime.

19. Evidence -- Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) -- no reversal absent showing of manifest abuse of discretion. -- When a trial court has admitted evidence under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b), the appellate court will not reverse absent a showing that the court manifestly abused its discretion.

20. Evidence -- modus operandi -- conduct in unrelated incident against third party considered. -- In considering modus operandi, the supreme court considers conduct in an unrelated incident against a third party; the test used by the court is the uniqueness of the methodology employed and striking similarity.

21. Evidence -- modus operandi -- trial court did not abuse discretion in admitting evidence. -- Where there was a striking similarity in appellant's conduct with respect to each of the women who testified, the evidence introduced through and about two women was highly relevant to prove appellant's modus operandi, scheme, or plan; the supreme court could not say that the trial court abused its discretion in admitting the evidence.

22. Criminal law -- Rape Shield Statute -- trial court properly rejected admission of evidence of prior encounter. -- The allegation of a prior encounter between appellant and a victim was of the very type contemplated to be excluded under the Rape Shield Statute; where appellant's defense to the episode prosecuted in counts six, seven, and eight was that he "mistakenly" drugged the victim with a dose meant for himself and that he had no intention of committing any sexual act with the victim, the explanation rendered the introduction of any prior alleged sexual encounter with the victim completely irrelevant, and the trial court properly rejected the admission of the evidence under the Rape Shield Statute.

23. Criminal law -- Rape Shield Statute -- challenge to constitutionality rejected. -- The supreme court rejected appellant's challenges to the constitutionality of the Rape Shield Statute, having previously determined that the statute is constitutional and that it does not violate due process or equal protection rights; the supreme court did not view the statute as having supplanted the court's rule making power and ability to control the courts.

24. Witnesses -- expert witness -- qualification within trial court's discretion. -- Whether a witness qualifies as an expert in a particular field is a matter within the trial court's discretion; the supreme court will not reverse such a decision absent an abuse of that discretion.

25. Evidence -- expert testimony -- test of admissibility. -- If some reasonable basis exists demonstrating that a witness has knowledge of a subject beyond that of ordinary knowledge, the evidence is admissible as expert testimony; the general test of admissibility of expert testimony is whether it will assist the trier of fact in understanding the evidence presented or determining a fact in issue.

26. Evidence -- expert testimony -- determination of relevance. -- Expert testimony must be relevant and not misleading or confusing to the jury; in determining the relevance of the testimony, the proponent must show that the evidence is reliable and sufficiently related to the facts of the case to aid the trier of fact in resolving the dispute.

27. Witnesses -- expert witness -- witness properly qualified as expert in field of pharmacology. -- The supreme court held that a witness was properly qualified as an expert in the field of pharmacology, and specifically on the matter of the drug at issue where the witness's testimony detailed the physiological effects of the drug on humans; where his familiarity with the effects of the drug came from his testing and research; and where, based on his knowledge of the physiological effect of the drug on the human body, he found that the testimony offered by the victims was consistent with the ingestion of the drug and the resulting disabilities produced by the drug.

28. Witnesses -- expert witness -- weakness in factual underpinning of opinion goes to weight & credibility of testimony. -- Once an expert witness is qualified,...