Estrada v. State, 376 S.W.3d 395

Juan Estrada was convicted by jury in Pulaski County Circuit Court of rape under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103 and first-degree sexual abuse under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-108; sentenced to life imprisonment.
The State amended the sexual-offense charge at trial to reflect the statute in effect, and Estrada did not object to the amendment.
Witnesses C.O. (15 at trial) testified to repeated sexual abuse by Estrada beginning when she was four years old, including intercourse with him, and later disclosed to her mother and authorities.
Witness C.P. (18 at trial) testified that Estrada rubbed his penis on her vagina during a visit when she was eight.
Estrada testified in his defense and denied the charges; his wife and adult daughter testified they never observed inappropriate conduct.
After trial, Estrada moved for a new trial based on denial of an oral motion for continuance; the circuit court denied the motion from the bench.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for rape and first-degree sexual abuse	Estrada argues evidence is insufficient for rape and sexual abuse.	Estrada contends lack of corroboration and forcible compulsion, and lack of penetration for abuse.	Evidence supports both rape and sexual abuse.
Rape element and forcible compulsion requirement	State must prove forcible compulsion for rape.	For under-14 victim, forcible compulsion is not required.	Forcible compulsion not required where victim is under fourteen; conviction sustained.
Proof of first-degree sexual abuse without penetration or deviate sexual activity	Penetration or deviate activity required to prove abuse.	Penetration is not an element; sexual contact suffices when proven.	Sexual contact proven via C.P.’s testimony; conviction sustained.
Denial of motion for continuance and new-trial analysis	Denial impaired fair trial; new trial warranted.	Circuit court did not abuse discretion; issues raised on continuance unsupported.	No reversible error; denial of continuance affirmed.
Preservation of ineffective-assistance claim	Counsel's performance warranted reversal.	Ineffective-assistance issue not preserved for appellate review.	Ineffective-assistance claim not preserved; appellate merits not reached.

Rohrbach v. State, 374 Ark. 271, 287 S.W.3d 590 (2008) (rape-victim testimony alone can sustain a conviction)
Kelley v. State, 375 Ark. 483, 292 S.W.3d 297 (2009) (no corroboration or scientific evidence required for rape)
Holloway v. State, 312 Ark. 306, 849 S.W.2d 473 (1993) (descent into inference: sexual-contact proof may be presumed from conduct)
McGalliard v. State, 306 Ark. 181, 813 S.W.2d 768 (1991) (reasonableness of inference for sexual gratification without direct proof)
Tryon v. State, 371 Ark. 25, 263 S.W.3d 475 (2007) (credibility is for the jury)
Davenport v. State, 373 Ark. 71, 281 S.W.3d 268 (2008) (credibility and reasonable-inference review in sufficiency challenges)
Arnett v. State, 353 Ark. 165, 122 S.W.3d 484 (2003) (directed-verdict standard; substantial evidence review)
Finch v. State, 262 Ark. 313, 556 S.W.2d 434 (1977) (motion for new trial grounds, continuance context)
Rackley v. State, 371 Ark. 438, 267 S.W.3d 578 (2007) (preservation of claims for appellate review)