Christian Heverly v. State of Arkansas

2021 Ark. App. 206

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: May 5, 2021
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2021 Ark. App. 206 Elizabeth Perry I attest to the accuracy and ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS integrity of this document DIVISION II No. CR-20-450 2023.06.27 11:42:00 -05'00' 2023.001.20174 Opinion Delivered: May 5, 2021 CHRISTIAN HEVERLY APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 26CR-18-379] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE JOHN HOMER WRIGHT, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

Christian Heverly appeals his conviction by a Garland County Circuit Court jury of

video voyeurism and rape, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence. Heverly failed to

preserve his argument for appeal, and we affirm.

On June 5, 2018, the prosecuting attorney filed a criminal information charging

Heverly with raping AL on May 6, 2016. The information was later amended to include a

second charge of video voyeurism perpetrated against the same victim and occurring on the

same date.

At the jury trial on December 11, 2019, AL offered extensive testimony regarding

the events of the evening that led up to her rape. After having a fight with her boyfriend,

AL asked Heverly to pick her up at a Walgreens on Highway 7. AL testified that Heverly

drove her to his house, and when they arrived, they drove a golf cart to the liquor store and bought alcohol. After arriving home from the liquor store, they sat on the porch and smoked

marijuana and drank. AL testified that two days earlier, she had used methamphetamine and

had not slept since then. AL also stated that she had taken Klonopin before Heverly arrived

to pick her up. AL explained that at one point in the evening, she became “agitated” and

sat in Heverly’s truck, where she saw demons. While she was sitting in the truck, Heverly

brought her a whiskey and Coke that did not taste right and had white specks floating in it.

AL went back inside the house, and Heverly gave her what he told her was a muscle relaxer,

which she took. AL fell asleep, and the only thing she remembered until the next morning

was waking up briefly and Heverly telling her “don’t worry. I’m shaving you.” AL testified

that she had gone to sleep fully clothed; however, she woke up the next day not wearing

her underwear or pants, and her shirt and bra were pulled up above her breasts. She testified

that her back, vagina, and anal area hurt. AL put on her clothes, and pretended to step

outside to smoke, then ran from Heverly’s home. AL stated that she called the police and

was taken to the hospital by ambulance. At the hospital, a rape kit was performed, and AL

discovered that her pubic area had been shaved. AL recalled that she never told Heverly he

could have sex with her and that she specifically told him no two times. AL stated that she

recently heard that Heverly had taken photographs of her that night, but she did not agree

to be photographed and she had never seen the pictures.

In addition to AL’s testimony, a forensic scientist from the Arkansas State Crime

Laboratory testified that Heverly’s DNA was found in AL’s underwear. Pictures from

2 Heverly’s cell phone depicting himself posing next to AL’s shaved genital area and digitally

raping her were admitted as evidence.

When the State concluded its case, Heverly’s counsel announced his intention to

move for a directed verdict, then stated, “[S]trike that. At this time, I want to renew each,

and every motion previously filed, argued and ruled upon by the court.” After recounting

the previous motions, counsel moved for a directed verdict and stated that

I couldn’t find any case law that supports this, but I’m gonna move for a directed verdict that the Court – in light of the testimony offered by AL and the unbelievable portions of her testimony, that her reliability is such that the Court should not submit this to the jury. That there is no fact in dispute that they could reasonably rely upon based on her testimony, and I’m gonna move for a directed verdict that it should not be submitted to the jury; that the prosecutrix is unbelievable or should not be believed. And I guess it should be argued as a matter of law, but I cannot find any case law that says that this is an actual appropriate ground for directed verdict, but I think I ought to make it anyway.

The State responded that credibility is a matter for the jury, and defense counsel

agreed. After some discussion of other objections and testimony, the court asked counsel,

“And you are satisfied you’ve made your motion for a directed verdict at the close of the

State’s case with enough specificity to preserve?” Counsel responded, “I would hope that I

have.” Again, the court pursued the matter, stating that “I really hadn’t heard anything

relative to the specifics of video voyeurism or the specifics of what elements in the rape you

think the State failed to prove.” Counsel agreed that the State had met its burden of proof

and explained that “that’s exactly my point is, is that the prosecutrix testified that she did

not consent to either one, and if that’s the case then the State has sustained its burden enough

3 to be submitted to the jury. That’s why I have made the motion as I did as to believability,

credibility, et cetera.”

Heverly was found guilty of rape and video voyeurism and was sentenced to serve

420 months and 180 months, respectively, in the Arkansas Department of Correction. He

timely filed a notice of appeal.

On appeal, Heverly challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his

conviction, arguing that the victim’s testimony was not credible. The crux of his argument

is that the victim “was not clearly aware of what was happening on the night of the incident.

As such, she could not give a coherent version of the facts.” Heverly’s argument is not

preserved.

Rule 33.1(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure requires that a directed-

verdict motion based on insufficient evidence must specify in what manner the evidence is

deficient; a motion merely stating that the evidence is insufficient does not preserve issues

concerning a specific deficiency—such as insufficient proof on the elements of the offense—

for appellate review. Rule 33.1 is to be strictly construed. Pinell v. State, 364 Ark. 353, 219

S.W.3d 168 (2005). The reasoning behind Rule 33.1 “is that when specific grounds are

stated and the absent proof is pinpointed, the circuit court can either grant the motion, or,

if justice requires, allow the State to reopen its case and supply the missing proof.” Id. at

357, 219 S.W.3d at 171.

Counsel did not attack the sufficiency of the State’s evidence that Heverly committed

rape and video voyeurism and instead focused on the victim’s credibility. Counsel’s

4 directed-verdict motion not only failed to specify in what manner the State’s proof was

insufficient, but also he agreed with the court that the State had met its burden of sufficiently

proving the elements of the charges against Heverly. Accordingly, we affirm.

Affirmed.

MURPHY and BROWN, JJ., agree.

Lisa-Marie Norris, for appellant.

Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Michael L. Yarbrough, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.