Hill v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 150 (unpublished)
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
CACR08-626
No.
Opinion Delivered MARCH
CLARENCE JEROME HILL
APPELLANT
4, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE JACKSON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR2007-85]
V.
HONORABLE HAROLD S. ERWIN,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge
Clarence Hill was tried by a jury on the charges of terroristic threatening in the first
degree and aggravated assault on a family or household member. He was convicted of both
crimes and was sentenced to concurrent prison terms of two years. He now appeals,
challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for each conviction. We do not address these
points because they are not preserved for appeal.
A person commits aggravated assault on a family or household member if, under
circumstances manifesting extreme indifference to the value of human life, the person
purposely engages in conduct that creates a substantial danger of death or serious physical
injury to a family or household member. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-26-306(a) (Repl. 2006). A
person commits the offense of terroristic threatening in the first degree if, with the purpose
of terrorizing another person, the person threatens to cause death or serious physical injury
or substantial property damage to another person. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-13-301(a)(1).
At trial the victim testified in detail about Hill’s alleged actions on the night of March
23, 2007, which resulted in the charges against him. Among those actions were beating her
in his home and at an outdoor location, shutting her in the trunk of a car, holding a box cutter
to her throat, and telling someone that he needed an alibi for his whereabouts. Further
testimony was given by police who took the victim’s report at the hospital, arrested Hill, and
searched his home and vehicles for physical evidence the victim had described, which was
also introduced into evidence.
At the close of the State’s case, Hill moved for a directed verdict solely on the basis
that the victim’s “credibility” was not sufficient to establish the crimes. The trial court
denied the motion, and Hill put on a case in his own defense. At the conclusion of all the
evidence, Hill renewed his directed-verdict motion “for the same exact reasons stated at the
close of the State’s case in chief.” His motion was again denied.
A motion for directed verdict or for dismissal based on insufficiency of the evidence
must specify the respect in which the evidence is deficient. Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c). A
motion merely stating that the evidence is insufficient does not preserve for appeal issues
relating to a specific deficiency such as insufficient proof on the elements of the offense. Id.
Accordingly, in order to preserve a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, an appellant
must make a specific motion for a directed verdict, both at the close of the State’s case and
at the end of all the evidence, that advises the trial court of the exact element of the crime that
-2-
the State has failed to prove. Carey v. State, 365 Ark. 379, 230 S.W.3d 553 (2006).
Hill’s directed-verdict motions merely challenged the victim’s credibility without
asserting that the State failed to prove a specific element of first-degree terroristic threatening
or aggravated assault on a family or household member. Because he did not advise the trial
court of any criminal element that the State failed to prove, he has not preserved his
insufficiency arguments and we will not address them on appeal.
Affirmed.
P ITTMAN and B AKER, JJ., 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.