Background
A Sevier County jury convicted Thomas Eugene Whitt of three counts of rape, one count of incest, and one count of second-degree sexual assault. The circuit court imposed an aggregate 150-year prison sentence and $25,000 in fines.
On appeal, Whitt challenged the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his rape conviction involving A. Pierce and his incest conviction. He also argued that the circuit court erred by allowing the State and its witnesses to call the complaining witnesses “victims” rather than “alleged victims.”
The Court’s Holding
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Whitt’s sufficiency challenges were not preserved because his directed-verdict motions merely recited the offenses’ elements and did not identify the particular evidentiary deficiencies he raised on appeal. Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1 requires a directed-verdict motion to specify how the evidence is deficient.
The court also found no prejudicial error in the references to “victims.” The circuit court itself used “alleged victims,” while the State’s usage reflected its theory of the case and an investigator’s usage occurred while describing her investigative role. The court concluded that the circuit court did not misread Friday v. State.
Key Takeaways
- A directed-verdict motion must specifically identify the missing proof; a general recitation of offense elements does not preserve a sufficiency claim.
- References by the prosecution to complaining witnesses as “victims” did not prejudice Whitt under the circumstances.
- The court affirmed Whitt’s convictions and aggregate 150-year sentence.
Why It Matters
The decision underscores Arkansas’s strict preservation rule for sufficiency challenges in criminal cases. Defense counsel must state the precise evidentiary shortfall at trial to obtain appellate review.
It also confirms that, absent prejudicial circumstances, a prosecutor’s or investigator’s use of “victim” will not necessarily undermine the presumption of innocence where that terminology plainly reflects the State’s theory or investigative context.