{
  "id": 1451258,
  "name": "Tony Franklin WILSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Wilson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1995-06-05",
  "docket_number": "CR 95-112",
  "first_page": "707",
  "last_page": "710",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "320 Ark. 707"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "898 S.W.2d 469"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "291 Ark. 157",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1872698
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/291/0157-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-85-405",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(a)(2)(d)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "301 Ark. 424",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1885529
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1990,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/301/0424-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "227 Ark. 789",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1705285
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1957,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/227/0789-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "296 Ark. 1",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1892780
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/296/0001-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "309 Ark. 316",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1906035
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/309/0316-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "308 Ark. 481",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1904376
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/308/0481-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 Ark. 479",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1898842
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/310/0479-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "314 Ark. 523",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1912803
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1993,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/314/0523-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "872 S.W.2d 898",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "316 Ark. 489",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1907763
      ],
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/316/0489-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 Ark. 384",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1443805
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/317/0384-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "319 Ark. 243",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1453552
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/319/0243-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "291 Ark. 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1872685
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/291/0004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "730 S.W.2d 242",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1871131
      ],
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/292/0391-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "294 Ark. 391",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 Ark. 119",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1898893
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/310/0119-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ark. 673",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1455906
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/318/0673-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "318 Ark. 87",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1455686
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/318/0087-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "317 Ark. 17",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1443825
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1994,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/317/0017-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "311 Ark. 220",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1896964
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/311/0220-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 346,
    "char_count": 4543,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.89,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 3.031357848701152e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8546365058348961
    },
    "sha256": "3bbb986c6c49d488571563d4e9e4de9c378169240630d3904d4f0e1bf088fb61",
    "simhash": "1:f24da426492ad239",
    "word_count": 791
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T17:06:37.743482+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "Tony Franklin WILSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Andree Layton Roaf, Justice.\nTony Wilson was convicted of raping his twelve year old daughter and sentenced to 60 years in prison. His sole contention on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to prove his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. We find no merit to his argument and affirm the judgment.\nAt trial, the victim testified that her father raped her in his trailer when she was visiting with him over the weekend of November 6, 1993. However, she did not tell her mother, with whom she lived, until some months later, and was not examined for evidence of sexual assault until March, 1994. The exam revealed a healed injury consistent with traumatic vaginal penetration.\nAt trial, appellant, his mother, sister and two of his children who lived with him all testified that the victim had not spent the weekend of November 6, 1993 at the appellant\u2019s trailer, and that she had not spent the night with appellant since some time in July, 1993.\nAppellant\u2019s motion for directed verdict based on insufficiency of the evidence was denied by the trial court, and he appeals from this denial.\nAppellant argues that because all his witnesses refuted the victim\u2019s testimony that she spent the weekend of November 6, 1993 with appellant and because she gave differing versions of some details of the rape, the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict. There is no merit to the argument.\nA motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, and when such a challenge is made we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee, considering only that evidence which tends to support the verdict. Tisdale v. State, 311 Ark. 220, 843 S.W.2d 803 (1992). Evidence is substantial if it is of sufficient force and character to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion or conjecture. Robinson v. State, 317 Ark. 17, 875 S.W.2d 837 (1994). If there is any substantial evidence to support the verdict we will affirm.\nOn matters of credibility of the witnesses and conflicting testimony, we have repeatedly held that the determination of those issues is left to the trier of fact. Byrum v. State, 318 Ark. 87, 884 S.W.2d 248 (1994); Miller v. State, 318 Ark. 673, 887 S.W.2d 280 (1994); Lukach v. State, 310 Ark. 119, 835 S.W.2d 852 (1991); Cope v. State, 294 Ark. 391, 730 S.W.2d 242 (1987); Mann v. State, 291 Ark. 4, 722 S.W.2d 266 (1987). The jury in this case judged the credibility of the victim\u2019s testimony and returned a guilty verdict.\nWe have also long and repeatedly held that the uncorroborated testimony of a rape victim, adult and children alike, is substantial evidence and sufficient to support the verdict. Caldwell v. State, 319 Ark. 243, 891 S.W.2d 42 (1995); Byrum v. State, supra; Lukach v. State, supra; Dillon v. State, 317 Ark. 384, 877 S.W.2d 915 (1994); Laughlin v. State, 316 Ark. 489, 872 S.W.2d 898 (1994); Fox v. State, 314 Ark. 523, 863 S.W.2d 568 (1993); Bishop v. State, 310 Ark. 479, 839 S.W.2d 6 (1992); Davis v. State, 308 Ark. 481, 825 S.W.2d 584 (1992).\nAppellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to establish that the victim spent the weekend with him on the date charged by the State. However, lack of certainty as to the date does not defeat a charge of this nature.\nIn Fry v. State, 309 Ark. 316, 829 S.W.2d 415 (1992), involving rape of two minors by their stepfather, we said:\nBy statute and case law it is established that generally the time a crime is alleged to have occurred is not of critical significance unless the date is material to the offense. Arkansas Code Ann. \u00a7 16-85-405(d) (1987); Bonds v. State, 296 Ark. 1, 751 S.W.2d 339 (1988); Kirkham v. City of North Little Rock, 227 Ark. 789, 301 S.W.2d 559 (1957). That is particularly true with sexual crimes against children and infants.\nIn Yates v. State, 301 Ark. 424, 785 S.W.2d 119 (1990), another case involving rape of a minor, we said \u201cAny discrepancies in the testimony concerning the date of the offense were for the jury to resolve.\u201d See also Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-85-405(a)(2)(d) (1987); Burris v. State, 291 Ark. 157, 722 S.W.2d 858 (1987).\nThe victim in this case gave a full and detailed accounting of the appellant\u2019s actions which is sufficient to support the verdict.\nFinding no error, we affirm the judgment.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Andree Layton Roaf, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "Robert A. Newcomb, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Tony Franklin WILSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 95-112\n898 S.W.2d 469\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 5, 1995\nRobert A. Newcomb, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0707-01",
  "first_page_order": 735,
  "last_page_order": 738
}