Levester Gillard v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS  No.  CR 07­646  Opinion Delivered  January 10, 2008  LEVESTER GILLARD,  APPELLANT,  VS.  STATE OF ARKANSAS,  APPEAL  FROM  THE  GARLAND  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,  NO. CR2005­3821,  HON. JOHN HOMER WRIGHT, JUDGE,  AFFIRMED.  APPELLEE,  JIM GUNTER, Associate Justice  This appeal arises from an order convicting Appellant Levester Gillard of rape, a class  Y felony and a violation Ark. Code Ann. § 5­14­103 (Supp. 2003), and kidnapping, a class  Y felony and a violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5­64­101 (Repl. 1997).  For these convictions,  Appellant was sentenced to life imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction on  both counts. Appellant brings his appeal from this order and argues that the convictions were  not supported by substantial evidence.  We affirm.  On October 28, 2000, the victim, Lyndsey Johnson, reported to the Garland County  Sheriff’s Department that, while waiting for a friend and sitting in a car at BJ’s Convenient  Store on Airport Road, a black male approached her and held her at gunpoint, demanding  that she get into his truck.  He drove the vehicle down a road and under a long narrow bridge  near Timberlake Road.  At that time, he forced her to partially disrobe and attempted to have  sexual intercourse with her.  He could not penetrate her, so he forced her to perform oral sex on him.  He left her at the scene, and she was able to get a ride from a passerby.  She was  taken to the emergency room at St. Joseph’s Hospital where a rape kit was performed.  The  kit was sent to the Arkansas Crime Lab for analysis.  On December 16, 2004, the crime lab notified officials in Howard County that the  DNA taken from the rape kit matched Appellant’s DNA, which was already in the database.  Based upon this information, a search warrant was executed at the Howard County Sheriff’s  Department where Appellant was being held.  Oral swabs of Appellant were taken.  On May  26, 2005, an investigator received a lab analysis that the DNA samples taken from the victim  matched those taken from Appellant.  On June 2, 2005, the State filed a felony information charging Appellant with one  count of kidnapping and one count of rape.  A jury trial was held on January 31, 2007.  At  trial, the victim testified that Appellant forced her out of the car, took her to a location under  a  bridge,  attempted  to  rape  her  vaginally,  and  forced  her  to  perform  oral  sex.    She  also  testified that a rape kit was performed at a local hospital where she was taken, and when she  went to the police station, she was unable to identify the man from among the pictures that  were shown to her.  At trial, however, the victim identified Appellant as the perpetrator.  Marsha  Albritton,  a  nurse  at  St.  Joseph  Hospital,  testified  that  she  gathered  and  labeled the evidence obtained from the rape kit.  Danny Wilson, a criminal investigator for  the Garland County Sheriff’s Department, testified that he met the victim at the hospital,  received the examination kit in a sealed box, and took it back to the Sheriff’s Department, ­2­  where it was placed in a refrigerator.  Wilson further testified that he developed Appellant,  whom he located in Howard County, as a suspect, and obtained a search warrant to gather  DNA from Appellant.  Melissa Myhand, an expert in the field of forensic biology, examined the items from  the kit, including the oral swabs from the victim, and based upon her analysis, prepared a  report. She testified that the DNA originated from Appellant “within all scientific certainty.”  She further added that one in forty­two quadrillion would obtain the exact profile that she  obtained from Appellant.  After the jury trial, Appellant was convicted of both counts and was sentenced to life  imprisonment on each count to run consecutively.  A judgment and commitment order was  filed on February 6, 2007, and an amended judgment and commitment order was filed on  March 21, 2007, to reflect his status as a habitual offender.  Appellant timely filed his notice  of appeal on March 21, 2007.  Appellant now appeals the judgment and sentence.  For his sole point on appeal, Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to  support Appellant’s convictions.  Specifically, Appellant contends that the DNA evidence  was improperly collected, stored, and analyzed.  Appellant further asserts that his conviction  is  based  upon  unreliable  and  uncorroborated  DNA  evidence,  which  was  insufficient  to  support his kidnapping and rape convictions.  In response, the State argues that Appellant’s  challenge is barred. In the alternative, the State maintains that there was substantial evidence  at trial to support Appellant’s convictions for kidnapping and rape. ­3­  Our standard of review for a sufficiency challenge is well settled. We treat a motion  for directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Navarro v. State, ___  Ark. ___, ___ S.W.3d ___ (Oct. 4, 2007).  We have repeatedly held that in reviewing a  challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable  to  the  State  and  consider  only  the  evidence  that  supports  the  verdict.  Id.  We  affirm  a  conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Id. Substantial evidence is that which  is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion  one way or the other, without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id.  We first address the State’s preservation argument. In order to preserve for appeal the  issue of the sufficiency of the evidence, a defendant must first raise the issue to the trial court  as provided in Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1.  Rule 33.1(a) provides that, in a jury trial, a defendant  must  challenge  sufficiency  by  a  specific  motion  for  directed  verdict  at  the  close  of  the  evidence offered by the prosecution and at the close of all of the evidence.  A defendant’s  failure to raise the issue at the times and in the manner required by the rule will constitute  a  waiver  of  any  question  pertaining  to  the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence  to  support  the  judgment.  Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c).  A motion for directed verdict is inadequate if it states “that the evidence is insufficient  [and] does not preserve for appeal issues relating to a specific deficiency such as insufficient  proof on the elements of the offense.” Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1(c); Smith v. State, 367 Ark. 274,  ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006). The motion must specifically advise the trial court as to how the ­4­  evidence was deficient. Id. (citing Nelson v. State, 365 Ark. 314, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2006);  Pyle v. State, 340 Ark. 53, 8 S.W.3d 491 (2000)). The reason underlying this requirement  that specific grounds be stated and that the absent proof be pinpointed is that it allows the  circuit court the option of either granting the motion, or, if justice requires, allowing the State  to reopen its case to supply the missing proof.  Id. (citing Webb v. State, 327 Ark. 51, 938  S.W.2d 806 (1997)). We will not address the merits of an appellant’s insufficiency argument  where the directed­verdict motion is not specific.  See Newman v. State, 353 Ark. 258, 106  S.W.3d 438 (2003).  In the present case, Appellant made the following motion for directed verdict after the  State rested:  MR. BECKHAM: Your Honor, we would move for a directed verdict with  regard  to  count  one.    The  State  has  failed  to  prove  its  burden  that  the  Defendant, Levester Gillard, restrained without consent Lyndsey Johnson with  the purpose of committing sexual intercourse or deviant sexual activity.  Secondly, with regard to count two, the State has failed to prove that  Levester Gillard engaged in sexual intercourse or sexual activity with Lyndsey  Johnson by forcible compulsion.  THE COURT: Okay.  And those motions are denied.  After the close of Appellant’s case, Appellant renewed his motion for directed verdict  during the following colloquy:  MR.  BECKHAM:  Your  Honor,  we  would  renew  our  directed  verdict  motions on the same grounds –  THE COURT: We’re gonna wait ’til we go in chambers.  MR. BECKHAM: Yes, sir.  . . . .  MR. BECKHAM: Defense would renew its directed verdict motion as  cited during the close of the State’s case, for the same grounds. ­5­  THE COURT: Motions to dismiss for insufficient evidence are denied.  Here,  Appellant’s  motion  for  directed  verdict  does  not  specifically  reflect  that  Appellant’s  convictions  were  based  upon  unreliable  or  uncorroborated  DNA  evidence.  Rather, Appellant generally argued that the State was unable to prove the elements of the  kidnapping and rape charges.  Our case law has established that Rule 33.1 must be strictly  construed.  Pratt v. State, 359 Ark. 16, 194 S.W.3d 183 (2004).  A general motion  that  merely asserts that the State has failed to prove its case is inadequate to preserve the issue  for appeal.  Grady v. State, 350 Ark. 160, 85 S.W.3d 531 (2002).  Based upon our review,  we conclude that Appellant’s directed­verdict motion was non­specific.  Therefore, we will  not address Appellant’s sufficiency­of­the­evidence argument on appeal.  Accordingly, we  affirm the circuit court’s denial of Appellant’s motion for directed verdict.  Further, we note that, under certain circumstances, we considered arguments that were  not  preserved  in  Engram  v.  State,  341  Ark.  196,  15  S.W.3d  678  (2000).    However,  we  considered  Engram’s  argument  regarding  DNA  evidence  because  the  appeal  involved  a  sentence of death.  Id. at 201, 15 S.W.3d at 680.  Here, Appellant was sentenced to life  imprisonment, and for that reason, we decline to address the merits of Appellant’s argument  on appeal.  Pursuant to Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4­3(h) (2007), the record in this case has been reviewed  for all objections, motions, and requests made by either party, which were decided adversely  to Appellant, and no prejudicial error has been found.  See, e.g., Bell v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ­6­  ___ S.W.3d ___ (Nov. 1, 2007).  Affirmed. ­7­ 

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.