ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ANDREE LAYTON ROAF, JUDGE

DIVISION IV

JUSTIN PUTMAN

APPELLANT

v.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CA 99-01429

MARCH 7, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CHANCERY COURT, JUVENILE DIVISION

[NO. J-99-299]

THE HONORABLE MARK HEWETT, CHANCELLOR

AFFIRMED

The chancery court adjudged the appellant, Jason Putman, a delinquent juvenile for committing the offense of first-degree terroristic threatening, and ordered him to serve ninety days of probation, ninety days in the Juvenile Detention Center, one hundred and sixty hours of community service with eighty hours suspended, and to wear an electronic monitor for ninety days. The court also gave him a two-year suspended commitment to the Department of Human Services (DHS). Putman's sole argument on appeal is that the trial court erred when it denied his motion for a directed verdict. Because Putman failed to renew his motion for a directed verdict at the close of his case, we must affirm without reaching the merits of his appeal.

The State filed a petition in Sebastian County Juvenile Court alleging that Justin Putman and David Knapp had committed first-degree terroristic threatening between the dates of August 15,1998, and April 22, 1999. The juvenile court conducted an adjudication hearing on August 13, 1999. Testimony by students indicated that on April 21, 1999, the day after the Columbine shootings, David Knapp prepared what Knapp initially called a list of annoying people, and later termed a "death list." The "death list" became a very hot topic around school, and Knapp subsequently admitted to creating the list, but claimed it was a joke.

Knapp testified that Putman added a name to the list, but that Putman thought it was a list of annoying people, not a death list. Several students testified that Knapp regularly made comments to them, such as: "I'm going to kill you," and "Would you be mad at me if I stabbed you in the head with this pencil." The only additional evidence against Putman was the testimony of two students. One student said that Putman poked her with a pencil eraser and said that was how he was going to stab her with a knife. Another student said Putman had a satanic bible in class with pictures of human sacrifices and Putman said, "This is what we are going to do to you." Both students said they did not take his comments seriously until after the list appeared.

At trial, Putman made a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the State's case, arguing that the circumstantial evidence presented by the State required "speculation or conjecture" and that there was no "history of any purpose to terrorize these victims by my client." However, as the State correctly points out, Putman failed to renew this motion at the conclusion of the case. As our supreme court stated in Pyle v. State, 330 Ark. 53, 8 S.W.3d 491 (2000), our procedural rules require that a motion for a directed verdict be brought at the conclusion of the prosecution's evidence and again at the close of the case. See also Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1. Thus, Putman's failure to renew his motion at the close of his case precludes our review of his appeal.

Affirmed.

Robbins and Bird, JJ., agree.