{
  "id": 3689903,
  "name": "Albert HAYES v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hayes v. State",
  "decision_date": "2008-10-02",
  "docket_number": "CR 08-300",
  "first_page": "384",
  "last_page": "387",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "374 Ark. 384"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "288 S.W.3d 204"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "366 Ark. 199",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3654993
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/366/0199-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "340 Ark. 18",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1365128
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2000,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/340/0018-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "320 Ark. 120",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1451189
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1995,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/320/0120-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 Ark. 646",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3798827
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/368/0646-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "369 Ark. 259",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        4017243
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2007,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/369/0259-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "368 Ark. 313",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3800521
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/368/0313-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 409,
    "char_count": 6113,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.789,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.01948500860457e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4237457473389375
    },
    "sha256": "b7a3052f79d4a0f3e0991f4683239020cc00e933796691a76cfa1a8e978a3020",
    "simhash": "1:1a8f08b114a9d6b8",
    "word_count": 1000
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:36:09.980592+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Wills, J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Albert HAYES v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Jim Gunter, Justice.\nAppellant was convicted by a jury of sexual abuse in the first degree and sentenced to ten years\u2019 imprisonment. He now appeals the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his conviction, asserting that the victim\u2019s testimony was inconsistent and that the jury had to rely on speculation or conjecture in reaching its verdict. Because this court decided a previous appeal in this case, our jurisdiction is proper under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule l-2(a) (2008). We affirm the judgment of conviction.\nAppellant was charged with sexual abuse in the first degree after his granddaughter accused him of touching her inappropriately when she was a child. The victim, who was twenty-two at the time of the trial, testified that appellant first abused her when she was eight or nine years old. She testified that she and her family were staying at appellant\u2019s home for Thanksgiving, and appellant laid on the floor next to her while watching TV and \u201cspooned\u201d her. She testified that she fell asleep and when she awoke, appellant\u2019s hand was on her vagina, inside her pants but not inside her underwear. She testified that her older brother was in the room but that the room was dark and she was under a blanket. She testified that this type of touching happened on more than one occasion. She testified that she told her brother about the abuse when she was seventeen years old, and her brother told her biological father. Her father then brought her to Arkansas to report the abuse. According to an incident report filed with the Ouachita County Sheriff s Office, the victim and her father first reported the abuse on August 8, 2003, when the victim was eighteen years old. On cross-examination, she admitted that she did not remember if all the incidents had happened during the day or at night, whether the lights were on or off, or exactly how many incidents had occurred.\nThe victim\u2019s older brother testified that on one visit to appellant\u2019s home for Thanksgiving, he, his sister, and appellant had stayed up late one night watching a movie. He testified that appellant lay behind his sister under a blanket and that \u201cthey were spooning like you would spoon with your significant other.\u201d He testified that he was approximately thirteen years old at the time and did not think much of it. He testified that he was shocked when he later learned of the abuse.\nFinally, the State presented the testimony of the victim\u2019s uncle, who testified that he confronted appellant upon learning of the abuse. He testified that appellant had no response at first, but appellant later said he felt \u201clike blowing [his] head off.\u201d\nAt the close of the State\u2019s evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State had failed to establish he was over eighteen at the time of the alleged offense, that the victim\u2019s statements were inconsistent and contradictory, and that there had been no proof the alleged acts were done for the purpose of sexual gratification. The court denied the motion and, after the defense rested without presenting additional evidence, denied the renewed motion. A jury found appellant guilty, and the court imposed the recommended sentence of ten years\u2019 imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Appellant now appeals his conviction to this court.\nThe test for determining sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence, either direct or circumstantial, supports the verdict. Brunson v. State, 368 Ark. 313, 245 S.W.3d 132 (2006). Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient certainty and precision to compel a conclusion one way or another and pass beyond mere suspicion or conjecture. Id. On appeal, we review evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. The duty of resolving conflicting testimony and determining the credibility of witnesses is left to the discretion of the jury. Boyd v. State, 369 Ark. 259, 253 S.W.3d 456 (2007). This court will not pass upon the credibility of a witness and has no right to disregard the testimony of any witness after the jury has given it full credence, unless the testimony is inherently improbable, physically impossible, or so clearly unbelievable that reasonable minds could differ thereon. Wyles v. State, 368 Ark. 646, 249 S.W.3d 782 (2007).\nOn appeal, appellant argues that the only evidence presented by the State to prove its case was the testimony of the victim and that her testimony contained too many inconsistencies to constitute substantial evidence to support his conviction. Although a rape victim\u2019s testimony need not be corroborated to support a conviction, Gatlin v. State, 320 Ark. 120, 895 S.W.2d 526 (1995), we first note that the victim\u2019s testimony was not the only evidence presented; the State also introduced testimony from her brother, who corroborated her account of appellant lying on the floor next to her and \u201cspooning\u201d her. Second, as noted above, any inconsistencies in the victim\u2019s testimony were for the jury to resolve, and we are bound by the fact-finder\u2019s determination on the credibility of witnesses. Harmon v. State, 340 Ark. 18, 8 S.W.3d 472 (2000). In addition, inconsistent testimony does not render proof insufficient as a matter of law, and one eyewitness\u2019s testimony is sufficient to sustain a conviction. Id. Accordingly, we find that appellant\u2019s conviction is supported by substantial evidence and affirm.\nAffirmed.\nWills, J., not participating.\nIn State v. Hayes, 366 Ark. 199, 234 S.W.3d 307 (2006), this court reversed the circuit court\u2019s dismissal of the criminal action against appellant and determined that the statute of limitations on the sexual abuse charge commenced to run on the victim\u2019s eighteenth birthday, making timely the felony information filed approximately eight months after the victim\u2019s eighteenth birthday.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Jim Gunter, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "The Cannon Law Firm, P.L.C., by: David R. Cannon, for appellant.",
      "\u25a0 Dustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Eileen W. Harrison, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Albert HAYES v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 08-300\n288 S.W.3d 204\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered October 2, 2008\nThe Cannon Law Firm, P.L.C., by: David R. Cannon, for appellant.\n\u25a0 Dustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Eileen W. Harrison, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0384-01",
  "first_page_order": 408,
  "last_page_order": 411
}