{
  "id": 1882732,
  "name": "Loyd Ray WHITE v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "White v. State",
  "decision_date": "1990-07-09",
  "docket_number": "CR 90-15",
  "first_page": "30",
  "last_page": "34",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "303 Ark. 30"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "792 S.W.2d 867"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "289 Ark. 63",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1875363
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1986,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/289/0063-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "292 Ark. 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1871131
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0391-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 Ark. 328",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892713
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/296/0328-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 417,
    "char_count": 6909,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.883,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0187675718227233e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7451428635414652
    },
    "sha256": "f5ceea808c517f77d78698d0b56aa8fdae4c0d0c0f9b84425cd3e5737c724182",
    "simhash": "1:e3bec6b322b2dbfe",
    "word_count": 1202
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:41:20.399175+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Loyd Ray WHITE v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "David Newbern, Justice.\nLoyd Ray White appeals his conviction of rape and kidnapping for which he was sentenced, as an habitual offender, to life imprisonment and 40 years imprisonment to run consecutively. We disagree with his contention that the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction and with his argument that the victim should not have been allowed to state his \u201cconclusion\u201d that White was the person who raped him. The conviction is affirmed.\nThe victim, aged 14 at the time the offense occurred, lived with his parents near the Youth Services Center at Alexander. He testified he was fishing alone at a pond on the center\u2019s grounds when a person he identified as White rode up to him four times on a \u201cfour-wheeler\u201d vehicle. White spoke to the victim and, among other conversational items, told him he was waiting in the area for a girl with whom he, White, intended to engage in sexual intercourse.\nAs the victim was leaving the pond area for home, he was accosted by a person with a gun dressed from head to toe in winter clothing, including a ski mask and colored glasses. The victim was asked for his money, of which he had none, and then was taken to a nearby shed where, at gunpoint, he was forced to engage in anal intercourse and fellatio.\nThe victim first identified White at a police photo-lineup as the person who had approached him on the four-wheeler. At the trial the victim testified that he could not identify White by sight as the person who had raped him because the victim could not see the face of his attacker but that he was positive it was White because the person who raped him had used the same scatological language in the same way, and the voice was the same. The victim also mentioned that the rapist asked him repeatedly if he knew the person on the four-wheeler or could identify him.\nWhite admitted riding his four-wheeler on the grounds of the youth center on the afternoon in question but testified he was only there between 4:00 and 4:35 p.m. The victim testified it was later in the afternoon, 5:35 or 5:45 at the latest that he arrived at the pond and after which he was repeatedly approached by White. Other witnesses testified to having seen White riding on the grounds between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m.\nWhite contends the victim\u2019s identification testimony was equivocal and thus not sufficient, especially when combined with the lack of forensic evidence against him. He also contends that, because the victim couched his identification in terms of it being the victim\u2019s \u201cconclusion\u201d that his rapist was White, the evidence should not have been admitted.\n1. Sufficiency of the evidence\nWe view the evidence most favorably to the appellee, and the identification testimony of a rape victim is sufficient to support a conviction. Maulding v. State, 296 Ark. 328, 757 S.W.2d 916 (1988). Scientific evidence is not required. Cope v. State, 292 Ark. 391, 730 S.W.2d 242 (1987).\nAt some points in his testimony the victim said he did not know who the man in the mask was, but he had reached the conclusion, based on the scatological language used by the masked man that he was the same person as the one on the four-wheeler; the man who raped him had the \u201csame kind of mind\u201d as the man on the four-wheeler.\nWhite argues the victim\u2019s voice identification was equivocal and thus not sufficient to support the conviction, but we note this portion of the victim\u2019s testimony: \u201cIt is the guy on the four-wheeler, Loyd, Loyd Ray White. I\u2019m referring to the Defendant. That\u2019s the man who held me at gunpoint and raped me, that\u2019s what I think. I do not really have any doubts about that.\u201d\nWe regard the voice identification as sufficient. Any inconsistencies there may have been in the victim\u2019s testimony were for the jury to resolve. Cope v. State, supra.\n2. Admissibility\nAt one point in his testimony on direct examination, the victim was asked if, while examining the area where the rape occurred with a police officer, he had seen any tracks. He responded that he had showed the officer where the four-wheeler tracks were but that there were no footprints. He concluded: \u201cJust stuff that this builds up and comes back to the guy on the four-wheeler.\u201d Defense counsel objected that the answer was a conclusion and was not responsive to the question. The objection was sustained.\nShortly thereafter, the victim was asked why he thought the masked man who raped him was the same person as White, whom he had recognized as the person on the vehicle. His response was: \u201cHe said it enough times [apparently referring to the scatological terminology], I know how it sounded and the way that guy with the mask said it, it sounded just like him. It sounded familiar.\u201d The next question was, \u201cWhen did you come to that conclusion?\u201d The victim answered, \u201cWhen he was in behind me.\u201d Defense counsel objected on the ground that the witness was \u201cstating conclusions.\u201d The objection was overruled.\nThe argument here is that the court erred in allowing the victim to state his opinion. The argument equates \u201cconclusion\u201d with \u201copinion,\u201d and the only authority cited is Ark. R. Evid. 701 which permits a non-expert witness to testify as to an opinion if it is rationally based on his perception and helpful to a \u201cclear understanding of his testimony or the determination of a fact in issue.\u201d\nWe need not quibble about whether a conclusion and an opinion are the same, for even if we characterized the testimony as the expression of an opinion we would have to say it was rationally based on the victim\u2019s perception and helpful to determination of a fact in issue. We do not reverse a trial court\u2019s evidentiary rulings unless a clear abuse of discretion is shown. Clifton v. State, 289 Ark. 63, 709 S.W.2d 63 (1986). No abuse has been shown.\n3. Rule 11(f)\nThere is no indication in the brief filed for White that all objections decided adversely to him have been abstracted. There is no indication in the brief filed for the state that the attorney general has made certain that all objections have been abstracted or has briefed other points which appear to have merit in addition to those argued by White. Both parties have thus failed to comply with Rule 11 (f) of the Rules of the Arkansas Supreme Court and Court of Appeals applicable to cases in which the sentence is to life imprisonment.\nRather than incur the delay which would be involved if we asked for rebriefing, we have thoroughly examined the record and assured ourselves that no meritorious argument could be made with respect to the objections made on White\u2019s behalf in which the rulings were adverse to him and that there were no trial errors prejudicial to White requiring reversal.\nAffirmed.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "David Newbern, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Steve R. Davis, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: R.B. Friedlander, Solicitor Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Loyd Ray WHITE v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 90-15\n792 S.W.2d 867\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 9, 1990\nSteve R. Davis, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: R.B. Friedlander, Solicitor Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0030-01",
  "first_page_order": 58,
  "last_page_order": 62
}