Jason Gregory Hull v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
DIVISION II
CACR05-442
JASON GREGORY HULL
October 11, 2006
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE VAN BUREN
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR 2003-133]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HON. DAVID L. REYNOLDS,
CIRCUIT JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOSEPHINE L INKER H ART, Judge
A Van Buren County jury convicted Jason Gregory Hull of second-degree sexual
assault and sentenced him to fourteen years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On
appeal he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict and in
refusing to grant him access to Arkansas Department of Human Services’ records. We
affirm.
Hull first argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict
because “there are so many elements which serve to create doubt that . . . basic fairness
would preclude conviction in light of the many inconsistencies in the State’s case.” He
acknowledges that the scope of the directed verdict made at trial was limited to assertions
that the absence of scientific or DNA evidence, conflicts in the witnesses’ testimony, and the
unreliable victim testimony caused the evidence to be so deficient that a “reasonable person
could not conclude beyond a reasonable doubt” that he was guilty. Neither at trial, nor on
appeal, does he specifically reference any particular element of the offense for which the
State failed to present proof. His argument is without merit.
We treat the denial of motions for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency
of the evidence. Silverman v. State, 63 Ark. App. 94, 974 S.W.2d 484 (1998). Evidence is
sufficient to support a conviction if the trier of fact can reach a conclusion without having
to resort to speculation or conjecture. When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, it is
only necessary for us to ascertain that evidence which is most favorable to the State, and it
is permissible to consider only that evidence which supports the guilty verdict. Id.
First, it is well-established law that reconciling conflicts in the testimony and
weighing the evidence are matters within the exclusive province of the jury and the jury’s
conclusion on credibility is binding on this court. Id. Second, we are unable to find any real
inconsistency in the testimony supporting Hull’s conviction. The ten-year-old victim testified
that she was lying on the couch in the home of Jason Shelton when Hull pulled her pants and
underwear down to her ankles and touched her “private spot” with his tongue.
She
confirmed that her knees were “apart” when Hull perpetrated the act. We note that Arkansas
State Police child-abuse investigator Robert Leal testified that when he interviewed the
victim, she described how her knees were spread apart and her pants were pulled down so
that her ankles were held together, which is consistent with the victim’s testimony at trial.
Jason Shelton testified that on the day in question, he walked into his residence and
-2-
CA05-442
observed Hull kneeling in front of his couch with the victim’s legs up in the air, her pants
around her ankles, and Hull’s hands “under her butt” and his face “three or four inches at the
most” away from her crotch. Van Buren County Sheriff’s Deputy Paul Rice testified that on
the day in question, he met with the victim and she told him that Hull “pulled down her pants
and he had been playing with her privates.” Rice also stated that Hull admitted pulling down
the victim’s pants, but explained that he had done so to examine a “bug bite.”
Hull next
argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to access the Arkansas Department
of Human Services CHRIS (Children’s Reporting and Information) records.
He
acknowledges that the United States Supreme Court passed on this issue in Pennsylvania v.
Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987), and held that an in camera review of the confidential records
when a criminal defendant seeks access to the records satisfied the requirements of the Sixth
Amendment. Hull, however, urges us to rely, not on the holding in Ritchie, but instead on
the dissent, which urges a more expansive interpretation of the State’s obligations in regard
to the Confrontation Clause. We are unable to accede to this request. We cannot discern that
Hull has asserted a separate Arkansas constitutional question in his argument, and we are
bound by the decisions of the United States Supreme Court regarding the interpretation of
the United States Constitution. Williams v. State, 254 Ark. 799, 496 S.W.2d 395 (1973). In
accordance with the Supreme Court’s procedural blueprint as set forth in Ritchie, we have
reviewed the sealed records that were reviewed in camera by the trial court, and we agree
that they do not contain exculpatory evidence that would warrant their release.
-3-
CA05-442
Affirmed.
G LOVER and C RABTREE, JJ., agree.
-4-
CA05-442
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.