Ballinger v. State

Court of Appeals of Arkansas

Ballinger v. State

2016 Ark. App. 177, 486 S.W.3d 239, 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 192

CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas

DecidedMarch 16, 2016

DocketCR-15-337

StatusPublished

Cited by2 cases

This text of 2016 Ark. App. 177 (Ballinger v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Ballinger v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 177, 486 S.W.3d 239, 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 192 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016).

Pincite

Opinion

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

hAn Ashley County jury found appellant Amy Lee Ballinger guilty of theft of property, for which she was sentenced to sixty days in the county jail and placed on five years’ probation. Appellant was also fined $1.00 and ordered to pay $20,000.00 in restitution. On appeal, she argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. More-specifically, she argues that the State failed to prove how she “deceived” the victims or that she did so “knowingly with the purpose to deprive.” Because appellant did not preserve this argument for appeal, we affirm.

This court" has consistently held that Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1 requires that an appellant move for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s evidence and again at the close of all of the evidence, and that the failure to do so waives , a challenge to | gthe sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. 1 In King v. State, 2 we specifically held that the failure to renew a motion for directed verdict after the close of the State’s, rebuttal. testimony waived the issue of sufficiency of the evidence. At trial, appellant made a motion for directed verdict at the end of the State’s case and at the end of the defense’s case-in-chief; however, appellant failed to renew her motion .at the close of the State’s rebuttal testimony. We hold that appellant failed to preserve the question of sufficiency of the evidence by failing to properly renew the motion for directed verdict after the State’s rebuttal testimony. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Hixson, J., agrees. Virden, J,, concurs.

1

. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 2009 Ark. 478, 348 S.W.3d 553; Flowers v. State, 362 Ark. 193, 202, 208 S.W.3d 113, 121 (2005); Romes v. State, 356 Ark. 26, 144 S.W.3d 750 (2004); Doss v. State, 351 Ark. 667, 97 S.W.3d 413 (2003); Pyle v. State, 340 Ark. 53, 8 S.W.3d 491 (2000).

2

. 338 Ark, 591, 999 S.W.2d 183 (1999).

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

hAn Ashley County jury found appellant Amy Lee Ballinger guilty of theft of property, for which she was sentenced to sixty days in the county jail and placed on five years’ probation. Appellant was also fined $1.00 and ordered to pay $20,000.00 in restitution. On appeal, she argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction. More-specifically, she argues that the State failed to prove how she “deceived” the victims or that she did so “knowingly with the purpose to deprive.” Because appellant did not preserve this argument for appeal, we affirm.

This court" has consistently held that Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 33.1 requires that an appellant move for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s evidence and again at the close of all of the evidence, and that the failure to do so waives , a challenge to | gthe sufficiency of the evidence on appeal. 1 In King v. State, 2 we specifically held that the failure to renew a motion for directed verdict after the close of the State’s, rebuttal. testimony waived the issue of sufficiency of the evidence. At trial, appellant made a motion for directed verdict at the end of the State’s case and at the end of the defense’s case-in-chief; however, appellant failed to renew her motion .at the close of the State’s rebuttal testimony. We hold that appellant failed to preserve the question of sufficiency of the evidence by failing to properly renew the motion for directed verdict after the State’s rebuttal testimony. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

Hixson, J., agrees. Virden, J,, concurs.

1

. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 2009 Ark. 478, 348 S.W.3d 553; Flowers v. State, 362 Ark. 193, 202, 208 S.W.3d 113, 121 (2005); Romes v. State, 356 Ark. 26, 144 S.W.3d 750 (2004); Doss v. State, 351 Ark. 667, 97 S.W.3d 413 (2003); Pyle v. State, 340 Ark. 53, 8 S.W.3d 491 (2000).

2

. 338 Ark, 591, 999 S.W.2d 183 (1999).

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

2016 Ark. App. 177, 486 S.W.3d 239, 2016 Ark. App. LEXIS 192, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/ballinger-v-state-arkctapp-2016.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack