N.L. v. State
2017 Ark. App. 227
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile N.L. was adjudicated delinquent for aggravated assault on a family/household member and second-degree domestic battery after a knife-involved altercation with his stepfather, Harrell Kimes, that left Kimes with a fractured eye socket requiring reconstructive surgery.
- The State presented testimony from Kimes and N.L.’s mother describing the fight; the State’s case then rested and N.L. moved for dismissal generically for failure to prove elements.
- N.L. put on a defense and, during closing, counsel argued justification/self-defense (claiming Kimes was the initial aggressor and N.L. defended his mother and himself).
- Defense counsel did not renew a specific motion to dismiss at the close of all the evidence identifying which element(s) were deficient; counsel only renewed objections generally.
- The Crawford County Circuit Court adjudicated N.L. delinquent and committed him to the Department of Youth Services; N.L. appealed challenging sufficiency of the evidence.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding N.L. failed to preserve his sufficiency challenge by not making a specific renewed motion at the close of all evidence as required by Rule 33.1.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Preservation of sufficiency-of-evidence challenge | N.L.: State did not prove elements of aggravated assault and domestic battery | State: Motion was generic and not properly renewed with specificity at close of all evidence | Court: Not preserved—Rule 33.1 requires a specific renewed motion at close of all evidence |
| Adequacy of motion to dismiss at close of State’s case | N.L.: initial motion at end of State’s case preserved issue | State: Rule requires renewal at close of all evidence; initial generic motion insufficient | Court: Initial generic motion insufficient; must be specific and renewed |
| Preservation of self-defense/justification on appeal | N.L.: argued justification/self-defense in closings; therefore sufficiency challenge preserved | State: Closing argument alone does not preserve sufficiency issue without specific motion | Court: Not preserved—closing argument does not substitute for a specific renewed motion |
Key Cases Cited
- Grady v. State, 350 Ark. 160, 85 S.W.3d 531 (Ark. 2002) (Rule 33.1 is strictly construed)
- Pinell v. State, 364 Ark. 353, 219 S.W.3d 168 (Ark. 2005) (specificity in directed-verdict motion lets court grant or allow State to reopen to supply proof)
- Holmes v. State, 347 Ark. 689, 66 S.W.3d 640 (Ark. 2002) (motion for directed verdict must be made at close of all evidence to preserve sufficiency)
- Elkins v. State, 374 Ark. 399, 288 S.W.3d 570 (Ark. 2008) (failure to make sufficiently specific motion equates to no motion for preservation)
- Williamson v. State, 350 S.W.3d 787 (Ark. 2009) (a motion specific only at close of all evidence but not at close of State’s case may still be deemed not preserved)