{
  "id": 1891452,
  "name": "Barry STEWART v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Stewart v. State",
  "decision_date": "1989-01-17",
  "docket_number": "CR 88-125",
  "first_page": "429",
  "last_page": "431",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "297 Ark. 429"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "762 S.W.2d 794"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "295 Ark. 499",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1893810
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/295/0499-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "9 Ark. App. 253",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6140892
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1983,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "child victim testified appellant put his \"twinkle\" in her private place"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "child victim testified appellant put his \"twinkle\" in her private place"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/9/0253-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 Ark. 375",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873720
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "child victim asked if appellant touched her with his private parts"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "child victim asked if appellant touched her with his private parts"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/290/0375-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 Ark. 292",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892719
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/296/0292-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-14-101",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(9)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 325,
    "char_count": 4105,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.929,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 1.0035478146029496e-07,
      "percentile": 0.5395949725254252
    },
    "sha256": "3ba7abecb0a0ddf5fb6104d18434d8f29b06652d0ebee57064cd59f9919e60a1",
    "simhash": "1:1b2fc1a8418d4bc7",
    "word_count": 698
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:24:39.933112+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Barry STEWART v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nThe appellant was convicted of the rape of a ten-year-old girl and was sentenced to life imprisonment. On appeal he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his conviction. We affirm the conviction.\nThe victim was the daughter of the appellant\u2019s former girlfriend. The child testified that in November of 1987, she and her younger cousin accompanied the appellant on a trip to a laundromat. The appellant had brought along other children, who were his relatives.\nThe appellant told the victim he would take her to the store to get some candy. They left the laundromat alone, leaving the other children behind. After going to the store, the appellant drove to a dead-end street. At trial, the victim gave the following description of the incident:\nHe put his private spot inside of mine.\nHe got on top of me. He put his private spot in mine.\nQ. When he got on top of you, what did he do then?\nA. He started going up and down.\nQ. Was he inside of you?\nA. Yes.\nThe following January, the victim\u2019s two-year-old cousin was taken to the doctor and diagnosed as having gonorrhea. Consequently, all other members of the household were tested.. The victim tested positive. At that point, she revealed that the appellant had raped her. The child\u2019s mother testified that her daughter had been withdrawn and had been in and out of the bathroom several times the night of the incident. But until the doctor\u2019s visit, the mother did not know of the rape.\nThe examining physician testified that the child\u2019s genital area showed no trauma or bruising, but she did in fact have gonorrhea, and the opening in her hymen was suspiciously large, indicating sexual abuse.\nAfter the state\u2019s presentation of the above mentioned evidence, the defense moved for a directed verdict. The trial judge denied the motion.\nStewart\u2019s argument is the state\u2019s evidence was insufficient because the anatomical terms in the rape statute were not used by the victim in describing the incident. Stewart also argues that the state\u2019s witnesses were not credible.\nThe appellant was charged with having sexual intercourse with a person less than 14 years of age. Sexual intercourse is defined as penetration, however slight, of a vagina by a penis. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-14-101(9) (1987).\nIn a rape case, the requirement of substantial evidence is satisfied by the rape victim\u2019s testimony alone. There need not be corroboration. Roper v. State, 296 Ark. 292, 756 S.W.2d 124 (1988). In this case the victim\u2019s testimony is sufficient if it can be said that her use of child-like terms to describe the act of intercourse constitutes substantial evidence.\nWe have held that, even though a child may not use correct terms for a body part but instead uses his own terms or demonstrates a knowledge of what and where those body parts referred to are, that will be sufficient to allow the jury to believe that a rape occurred. Jackson v. State, 290 Ark. 375, 720 S.W.2d 282 (1986) (child victim asked if appellant touched her with his private parts); see also Harris v. State, 9 Ark. App. 253, 657 S.W.2d 566 (1983) (child victim testified appellant put his \u201ctwinkle\u201d in her private place).\nHere, the child said that the appellant was \u201cinside\u201d her and was on top of her and, while he was inside her, \u201cstarted going up and down.\u201d The jury could conclude, without resort to speculation, that this was a child\u2019s description of sexual intercourse.\nThe appellant\u2019s argument regarding credibility fails because that question is for the jury to resolve, not us. Lewis v. State, 295 Ark. 499, 749 S.W.2d 672 (1988). The jury chose to believe the child and to believe the doctor\u2019s opinion that sexual abuse had occurred.\nWe find the record contains no other reversible errors. Ark. Sup. Ct. Rule 11 (f).\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Howard W. Koopman, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Jeannette Denhammcclendon, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Barry STEWART v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 88-125\n762 S.W.2d 794\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 17, 1989\nWilliam R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Howard W. Koopman, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Jeannette Denhammcclendon, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0429-01",
  "first_page_order": 465,
  "last_page_order": 467
}