Albert Hayes v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR08-300
Opinion Delivered October 2, 2008
ALBERT HAYES
APPELLANT,
VS.
APPEAL FROM LONOKE COUNTY
CIRCUIT COURT,
NO. CR-2004-573,
HON. LANCE HANSHAW, JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE,
AFFIRMED
JIM GUNTER, Associate Justice
CRIMINAL LAW — SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE — EVIDENCE WAS SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT FIRST DEGREE SEXUAL ABUSE CONVICTION . — The test for determining sufficiency of the evidence
is whether substantial evidence, either direct or circumstantial, supports the verdict; the duty
of resolving conflicting testimony and determining the credibility of witnesses is left to the
discretion of the jury; here, the victim’s testimony was not the only evidence presented; the
State also introduced testimony from her brother, who corroborated the victim’s account; any
inconsistences in the victim’s testimony were for the jury to resolve, and the fact-finder’s
determination on the credibility of the witnesses was binding; accordingly, the appellant’s
first-degree sexual abuse conviction was supported by substantial evidence and was affirmed.
Appeal from Lonoke Circuit Court; Lance L. Hanshaw, Judge; affirmed.
The Cannon Law Firm, P.L.C., by: David R. Cannon, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att’y Gen., by: Eileen W. Harrison, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
Appellant was convicted by a jury of sexual abuse in the first degree and sentenced to
ten years’ imprisonment. He now appeals the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
conviction, asserting that the victim’s testimony was inconsistent and that the jury had to rely
on speculation or conjecture in reaching its verdict. Because this court decided a previous
appeal in this case, our jurisdiction is proper under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 1-2(a)
(2008).1 We affirm the judgment of conviction.
Appellant was charged with sexual abuse in the first degree after his granddaughter
accused him of touching her inappropriately when she was a child. The victim, who was
twenty-two at the time of the trial, testified that appellant first abused her when she was eight
or nine years old. She testified that she and her family were staying at appellant’s home for
Thanksgiving, and appellant laid on the floor next to her while watching TV and “spooned”
her. She testified that she fell asleep and when she awoke, appellant’s hand was on her vagina,
inside her pants but not inside her underwear. She testified that her older brother was in the
room but that the room was dark and she was under a blanket. She testified that this type of
touching happened on more than one occasion. She testified that she told her brother about
the abuse when she was seventeen years old, and her brother told her biological father. Her
father then brought her to Arkansas to report the abuse. According to an incident report filed
with the Ouachita County Sheriff’s Office, the victim and her father first reported the abuse
on August 8, 2003, when the victim was eighteen years old. On cross-examination, she
admitted that she did not remember if all the incidents had happened during the day or at
night, whether the lights were on or off, or exactly how many incidents had occurred.
The victim’s older brother testified that on one visit to appellant’s home for
1
In State v. Hayes, 366 Ark. 199, 234 S.W.3d 307 (2006), this court reversed the circuit
court’s dismissal of the criminal action against appellant and determined that the statute of
limitations on the sexual abuse charge commenced to run on the victim’s eighteenth birthday,
making timely the felony information filed approximately eight months after the victim’s
eighteenth birthday.
-2-
Thanksgiving, he, his sister, and appellant had stayed up late one night watching a movie. He
testified that appellant lay behind his sister under a blanket and that “they were spooning like
you would spoon with your significant other.” He testified that he was approximately thirteen
years old at the time and did not think much of it. He testified that he was shocked when he
later learned of the abuse.
Finally, the State presented the testimony of the victim’s uncle, who testified that he
confronted appellant upon learning of the abuse. He testified that appellant had no response
at first, but appellant later said he felt “like blowing [his] head off.”
At the close of the State’s evidence, appellant moved for a directed verdict, arguing that
the State had failed to establish he was over eighteen at the time of the alleged offense, that
the victim’s statements were inconsistent and contradictory, and that there had been no proof
the alleged acts were done for the purpose of sexual gratification. The court denied the
motion and, after the defense rested without presenting additional evidence, denied the
renewed motion. A jury found appellant guilty, and the court imposed the recommended
sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and a $10,000 fine. Appellant now appeals his conviction
to this court.
The test for determining sufficiency of the evidence is whether substantial evidence,
either direct or circumstantial, supports the verdict. Brunson v. State, 368 Ark. 313, 245
S.W.3d 132 (2006). Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient certainty and precision to
compel a conclusion one way or another and pass beyond mere suspicion or conjecture. Id.
On appeal, we review evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and consider only
-3-
the evidence that supports the verdict. Id. The duty of resolving conflicting testimony and
determining the credibility of witnesses is left to the discretion of the jury. Boyd v. State, 369
Ark. 259, 253 S.W.3d 456 (2007). This court will not pass upon the credibility of a witness
and has no right to disregard the testimony of any witness after the jury has given it full
credence, unless the testimony is inherently improbable, physically impossible, or so clearly
unbelievable that reasonable minds could differ thereon. Wyles v. State, 368 Ark. 646, 249
S.W.3d 782 (2007).
On appeal, appellant argues that the only evidence presented by the State to prove its
case was the testimony of the victim and that her testimony contained too many
inconsistencies to constitute substantial evidence to support his conviction. Although a rape
victim’s testimony need not be corroborated to support a conviction, Gatlin v. State, 320 Ark.
120, 895 S.W.2d 526 (1995), we first note that the victim’s testimony was not the only
evidence presented; the State also introduced testimony from her brother, who corroborated
her account of appellant lying on the floor next to her and “spooning” her. Second, as noted
above, any inconsistencies in the victim’s testimony were for the jury to resolve, and we are
bound by the fact-finder’s determination on the credibility of witnesses. Harmon v. State, 340
Ark. 18, 8 S.W.3d 472 (2000). In addition, inconsistent testimony does not render proof
insufficient as a matter of law, and one eyewitness’s testimony is sufficient to sustain a
conviction. Id. Accordingly, we find that appellant’s conviction is supported by substantial
evidence and affirm.
Affirmed.
-4-
W ILLS, J., not participating.
-5-
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.
