{
  "id": 6141165,
  "name": "Jason Gregory HULL v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hull v. State",
  "decision_date": "2006-10-11",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 05-442",
  "first_page": "280",
  "last_page": "283",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "96 Ark. App. 280"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "241 S.W.3d 302"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "254 Ark. 799",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1624143
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1973,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/254/0799-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "480 U.S. 39",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        1131144
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/480/0039-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ark. App. 94",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6137712
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1998,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/63/0094-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 362,
    "char_count": 4785,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.76,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.087085966315723e-08,
      "percentile": 0.37876513263900713
    },
    "sha256": "d4b245798b7b839fe7ba5afe9ee73ede74237389a25c20467017e4684724cdcd",
    "simhash": "1:920569886fc05943",
    "word_count": 796
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:00:30.615780+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Glover and Crabtree, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Jason Gregory HULL v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Josephine Linker Hart, Judge.\nA Van Bur\u00e9n County jury convictedjason Gregory Hull of second-degree sexual assault and sentenced him to fourteen years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On appeal he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict and in refusing to grant him access to Arkansas Department of Human Services\u2019 records. We affirm.\nHull first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict because \u201cthere are so many elements which serve to create doubt that. . . basic fairness would preclude conviction in light of the many inconsistencies in the State\u2019s case.\u201d He acknowledges that the scope of the directed verdict made at trial was limited to assertions that the absence of scientific or DNA evidence, conflicts in the witnesses\u2019 testimony, and the unreliable victim testimony caused the evidence to be so deficient that a \u201creasonable person could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt\u201d that he was guilty. Neither at trial, nor on appeal, does he specifically reference any particular element of the offense for which the State failed to present proof. His argument is without merit.\nWe treat the denial of motions for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Silverman v. State, 63 Ark. App. 94, 974 S.W.2d 484 (1998). Evidence is sufficient to support a conviction if the trier of fact can reach a conclusion without having to resort to speculation or conjecture. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, it is only necessary for us to ascertain that evidence which is most favorable to the State, and it is permissible to consider only that evidence which supports the guilty verdict. Id.\nFirst, it is well-established law that reconciling conflicts in the testimony and weighing the evidence are matters within the exclusive province of the jury and the jury\u2019s conclusion on credibility is binding on this court. Id. Second, we are unable to find any real inconsistency in the testimony supporting Hull\u2019s conviction. The ten-year-old victim testified that she was lying on the couch in the home ofjason Shelton when Hull pulled her pants and underwear down to her ankles and touched her \u201cprivate spot\u201d with his tongue. She confirmed that her knees were \u201capart\u201d when Hull perpetrated the act. We note that Arkansas State Police child-abuse investigator Robert Leal testified that when he interviewed the victim, she described how her knees were spread apart and her pants were pulled down so that her ankles were held together, which is consistent with the victim\u2019s testimony at trial.\nJason Shelton testified that on the day in question, he walked into his residence and observed Hull kneeling in front of his couch with the victim\u2019s legs up in the air, her pants around her ankles, and Hull\u2019s hands \u201cunder her butt\u201d and his face \u201cthree or four inches at the most\u201d away from her crotch. Van Bur\u00e9n County Sheriff s Deputy Paul Rice testified that on the day in question, he met with the victim and she told him that Hull \u201cpulled down her pants and he had been playing with her privates.\u201d Rice also stated that Hull admitted pulling down the victim\u2019s pants, but explained that he had done so to examine a \u201cbug bite.\u201d\nHull next argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to access the Arkansas Department of Human Services CHRIS (Children\u2019s Reporting and Information) records. He acknowledges that the United States Supreme Court passed on this issue in Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), and held that an in camera review of the confidential records when a criminal defendant seeks access to the records satisfied the requirements of the Sixth Amendment. Hull, however, urges us to rely, not on the holding in Ritchie, but instead on the dissent, which urges a more expansive interpretation of the State\u2019s obligations in regard to the Confrontation Clause. We are unable to accede to this request. We cannot discern that Hull has asserted a separate Arkansas constitutional question in his argument, and we are bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of the United States Constitution. Williams v. State, 254 Ark. 799, 496 S.W.2d 395 (1973). In accordance with the Supreme Court\u2019s procedural blueprint as set forth in Ritchie, we have reviewed the sealed records that were reviewed in camera by the trial court, and we agree that they do not contain exculpatory evidence that would warrant their release.\nAffirmed.\nGlover and Crabtree, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Josephine Linker Hart, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Scott Adams, for appellant.",
      "Mike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Brent P. Gasper, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Jason Gregory HULL v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 05-442\n241 S.W.3d 302\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 11, 2006\nScott Adams, for appellant.\nMike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Brent P. Gasper, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0280-01",
  "first_page_order": 308,
  "last_page_order": 311
}