NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

OLLY NEAL, Judge

DIVISION IV

CACR01-864

JANUARY 30, 2002

WILLIE MOORE AN APPEAL FROM THE MISSISSIPPI

APPELLANT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

v. [CR-2000-248]

STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE DAVID N. LASER, APPELLEE CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

A jury found appellant, Willie Moore, guilty of residential burglary and rape. He was sentenced to serve concurrent prison terms of five years and twenty years respectively. On appeal, Moore challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions. Because Moore's sufficiency argument was not preserved for appellate review, we affirm.

The victim, L.M., testified that on the night of August 4, 2000, she fell asleep around 11 p.m. while watching television. Shortly thereafter, she woke up to find someone's hand over her mouth. The person threatened to kill L.M. and told her not to look at him. The person got out of L.M.'s bed and removed the fan from the window; when he returned to the bed, he raped her. When L.M. asked him to stop, the person hit her. Although she failed to look at her assailant during the rape, L.M. described him as a nude African-American. During cross-examination, L.M. testified that "[t]he only thing I remember about him was his voice." L.M. also testified that her assailant failed to ejaculate.

After her assailant fell asleep, L.M. ran naked from her home seeking help. She first ran to a neighbor's home, but the neighbor would not let her in. She then saw a black truck and ran toward it. L.M. testified that the driver of the truck was her friend, Greg Daniel. She further testified that Daniel drove her to Sandra Blankenship's home, and from there she went to the hospital for a rape kit. During her testimony, L.M. denied knowing Moore and stated that she had never seen him before. L.M. did admit that she had intercourse with her fiancé on the night of August 3rd.

Sandra Blankenship testified that L.M. and Daniel arrived at her home around midnight. Blankenship also testified that when L.M. arrived, she had no clothes on. Blankenship further testified that L.M. told her that a man was in her house and that she had been raped. Blankenship said that upon hearing this, she called the police.

Jeff Wicker of the Blytheville Police Department testified that when he arrived at L.M.'s home, he found the screen off the bedroom window and the window was either raised or broken. Wicker stated that upon entering the home, he found a nude African-American male asleep on L.M.'s bed and that the male's clothes were on the floor between the window and bed. Wicker further testified that when he awakened the male, the male identified himself as David Moore, but a search of his pants uncovered identification that indicated that he was Willie Moore. Wicker testified that a butter knife was found on the bed; however, there was nothing to connect the knife to Moore because the knife was not dusted for fingerprints.

Mary Robinette, a forensic biologist, testified on Moore's behalf. Robinette testified that fluids from vaginal smears and swabs belonged to L.M. and an unidentified male. Robinette stated that Moore was not the male in question. Robinette did explain that in order for semen to be present, the male must ejaculate.

Prior to taking the stand, Moore presented the testimony of several of his family members who identified L.M. as one of his girlfriends. Moore testified that he met L.M. while cutting grass in the projects. He further testified that, on the evening of August 4th, he was riding with his girlfriend and that when the police pulled up behind them, he jumped from the car because there were outstanding warrants for his arrest. Moore stated that he sought refuge at L.M.'s home and that while there, he had a glass of water and a glass of liquor. Moore testified that he asked if he could lay down and that in response L.M. asked him for ten dollars before allowing him to lay down. Moore further testified that L.M. took his money and left. Moore stated that he passed out and was later awakened by the police. Moore denied raping L.M. or breaking into her home. Moore said that L.M. wanted to be his girlfriend.

At the close of the State's case and again at the close of all the evidence, Moore moved for directed verdict. The court denied the motion. Moore was found guilty on both charges. He now appeals.

On appeal, Moore argues the court erred in finding evidence sufficient to deny his motion for a directed verdict on the charges because circumstantial evidence must excludeevery other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence that prejudiced him. A motion for directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Leaks v. State, 345 Ark. 182, 45 S.W.3d 363 (2001). When 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. Branscum v. State, 345 Ark. 21, 43 S.W.3d 148 (2001). Evidence is sufficient to support a verdict if it is forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or another. Hughes v. State, 74 Ark. App. 126, 46 S.W.3d 538 (2001). Where the evidence is circumstantial, the appellate court must consider whether the evidence was sufficient to exclude all other reasonable hypotheses. Id. It is well established that we have the authority to go to the record to affirm a trial court's decision. Haynes v. State, 314 Ark. 354, 862 S.W.2d 275 (1993).

Moore's argument is not preserved for appeal. After the State rested its case, the following exchange took place:

Counsel for Defense: Your Honor, we move for directed verdict.

The Court: Come, approach, please.

Counsel for Defense: Your Honor, we move for a directed verdict, the State did not present its case beyond a reasonable doubt.

The Court: Based on insufficiency of the evidence?

Counsel for Defense: Yes, sir, Your Honor.

The Court: The court finds, giving the State the inferences to which it is entitled, at this point in the trial that there is sufficient evidence to each and every element of bothoffenses charged to go to a jury in this case. The motion's overruled.

At the close of all the evidence the following dialogue occurred between his attorney and the court:

The Court: Mr. Davis, I assume you want to renew motions at this time?

Counsel for Defense: Yes, sir, Your Honor.

The Court: The record will reflect motions renewed on the same grounds as previously stated and incorporated by reference and overruled.

Rule 33.1(a) of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure provides, "In a jury trial, if a motion for directed verdict is to be made, it shall be made at the close of the evidence offered by the prosecution and at the close of all of the evidence. A motion for directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor." Subsection (c) of that rule provides, in pertinent part, "A motion for directed verdict . . . must specify the respect in which the evidence is deficient. A motion merely stating the evidence is insufficient does not preserve for appeal issues relating to a specific deficiency such as insufficient proof on the elements of the offense." See also Hutcherson v. State, 74 Ark. App. 72, 47 S.W.3d 267 (2001).

Moore's motion for directed verdict fails to specify in what respect the evidence was deficient. Moore's motions were general motions based on insufficient evidence. We have held that general motions that simply state that the evidence is insufficient do not satisfy the requirements of Rule 33.1. See Hutcherson v. State, supra. Consequently, this issue is not preserved for appellate review.

Affirmed.

Robbins and Baker, JJ., agree.