M.W. v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 799
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CA09-1395
Opinion Delivered
M.W.
APPELLANT
December 1, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
TENTH DIVISION
[JD-2009-360]
HONORABLE JOYCE WARREN,
JUDGE
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
Appellant, M.W., was adjudicated delinquent on the charge of second-degree battery,
a Class D felony, and placed on probation. On appeal, M.W. argues that the trial court erred
in finding sufficient evidence that she knowingly caused physical injury as required by statute.
This argument was not preserved for appellate review. We affirm.
Juvenile delinquency proceedings, except as otherwise provided in the juvenile code,
are governed by the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure. Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-325(f)
(Repl. 2009). In nonjury trials, if a motion for dismissal is to be made, it shall be made at the
close of all of the evidence, and if a motion for dismissal is made at the close of the
prosecution’s evidence, it must be renewed at the close of all of the evidence; in both cases,
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 799
the motion for dismissal must state the specific grounds therefor. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(b)
(2010). The failure to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at the time and in the manner
specified constitutes a waiver of any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence.
Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c).
Here, defense counsel made the following motion at the close of the State’s case: “I
think that they may have proven the disorderly conduct, but I think that’s all they have
proven so far. I’d move for a dismissal on the count of felony battery.” The trial court denied
this motion. At the close of all of the evidence, defense counsel renewed his motion. The trial
court then adjudicated M.W. delinquent.
M.W.’s motion failed to state any specific ground for dismissal; therefore, in
accordance with Rule 33.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure, she has waived any
argument regarding the sufficiency of the evidence. She argues on appeal that the trial court
erred in finding that she knowingly caused physical injury; however, that argument was never
made to the trial court. A party cannot change the grounds for a motion on appeal but is
bound by the scope and nature of the argument made at trial. Ellison v. State, 354 Ark. 340,
123 S.W.3d 874 (2003). For these reasons, M.W.’s argument on appeal is not preserved, and
we affirm the adjudication.
Affirmed.
P ITTMAN and G RUBER, JJ., agree.
-2-
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.
