Jason E. Parker v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS  NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  JOHN B. ROBBINS, JUDGE  DIVISION IV  CACR 07­410  DECEMBER 5, 2007  V. APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,  GREENWOOD DISTRICT  [NO. CR­2005­156­G]  STATE OF ARKANSAS  HONORABLE JAMES ROBERT  MARSCHEWSKI, JUDGE  JASON E. PARKER  APPELLANT  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED  Appellant Jason E. Parker appeals his conviction for misdemeanor fleeing, as found  by the Sebastian County Circuit Court, arguing that there is insufficient evidence to support  the conviction.  The State counters that the sufficiency of the evidence is not preserved for  review, or alternatively that the State presented sufficient evidence to support the finding of  guilt.  We affirm.  Rule 33.1 (b) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure provides that:  In a nonjury trial, if a motion for dismissal is to be made, it shall be made at the close  of  all  of  the  evidence.  The  motion  for  dismissal  shall  state  the  specific  grounds  therefor. If the defendant moved for dismissal at the conclusion of the prosecution's  evidence, then the motion must be renewed at the close of all of the evidence. The  failure  to  challenge  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence  as  required  in  subsection  (b)  constitutes a waiver of the sufficiency issue.  Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c).  Rule 33.1 is strictly  construed.  State v. Holmes, 347 Ark. 689, 66 S.W.3d 640 (2002); Christian v. State, 318  Ark. 813, 889 S.W.2d 717 (1994); Bradley v. State, 41 Ark. App. 205, 849 S.W.2d 8 (1993).  In this case, the State rested, and appellant moved for directed verdict, which was  denied.  Thereafter,  the  State  presented  rebuttal  evidence,  the  State  presented  closing  argument, and appellant presented closing argument.  Appellant failed to renew his motion  for directed verdict at the close of all the evidence, as required by Rule 33.1.  Consequently,  appellant’s  challenge  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence  was  not  preserved  for  appellate  review.  Even were we to consider the merits of this argument, we would affirm.  Appellant  was convicted of misdemeanor fleeing by means of a vehicle in violation of Ark. Code Ann.  § 5­54­125 (Repl. 2005), which on these facts required proof that appellant knew that his  immediate detention was being attempted by a law enforcement officer, and that appellant  failed to refrain from fleeing.  Appellant’s whole defense rested on the assertion that he was  unaware that the officer was behind him and wanted him to pull over.  The State presented  sufficient eyewitness testimony of the officer pursuing appellant that appellant was aware  that the officer was seeking to detain him, and that appellant failed to stop his vehicle and  instead led a chase through town.  Any challenge to this evidence would rest on an attack on  the officer’s credibility, which assessments are left to the finder of fact.  We affirm. ­2­  PITTMAN, C.J., and BIRD, J., agree. ­3­ 

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.