Fikes v. State
2010 Ark. App. 803
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2010Background
- Appellant David Fikes was convicted by a jury of computer child pornography and sentenced to fifteen years’ imprisonment.
- Appellant argues the trial court erred in denying a directed verdict due to insufficient circumstantial evidence.
- The standard of review for sufficiency of evidence permits conviction based on substantial circumstantial evidence.
- Detective Schrock conducted undercover chats with PinkGloss35 (a 13-year-old) and linked Big_Pops46 to Fikes via IP and profile data.
- Warrants were obtained and executed; computers, a webcam, and related items were seized from Fikes’s home.
- Dr. Aspell and other witnesses tied physical characteristics in photos/video to Fikes; defense challenged identity evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence sufficient to prove Fikes committed computer child pornography? | Fikes identity linked to Big_Pops46; chats, web cam, and computer history show guilt. | Circumstantial evidence fails to prove Fikes was the person in the chats or on webcam. | Yes; circumstantial evidence sufficient; affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Fikes v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 607 (Ark. App. 2010) (directed-verdict standards, sufficiency review of circumstantial evidence)
- Ross v. State, 346 Ark. 225, 57 S.W.3d 152 (2001) (standard for sufficiency of circumstantial evidence)
- Lewis v. State, 2010 Ark. 209 (Ark. 2010) (authority on appellate review of evidence sufficiency)