Ortega v. State, 501 S.W.3d 824

Ortega was tried in Garland County for rape as a habitual offender and convicted; sentenced to life imprisonment.
The State charged two alternative theories: rape by forcible compulsion and rape because the victim was physically helpless (unconscious/incapable of consent).
Victim testified she was intoxicated, separated from her husband, approached by Ortega, was placed in a choke hold, lost consciousness, awoke in a dumpster with injuries and blood, and had soreness in her genital area; DNA matching Ortega was found in the rape kit.
Medical and photographic evidence corroborated choking and injuries; detectives recorded recent scratches on Ortega and two interviews in which he denied knowing the victim.
Ortega moved for directed verdicts at close of the State’s case and after all evidence; motions were denied. He also requested a verdict form by interrogatories; the court gave a general verdict form over his objection.
On appeal Ortega challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence as to both alternate theories and (2) the refusal to submit jury interrogatories (arguing lack of unanimity on the alternate theories).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Ortega)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for rape (forcible compulsion and physically helpless)	Evidence (victim testimony, injuries, DNA, debris, medical findings) supports conviction under either theory	Evidence consistent with consensual sex or alternative causes (intoxication, fall, c-collar) — jury improperly credited victim	Affirmed: substantial evidence supported conviction on both theories when viewed in State's favor
Denial of directed verdict motion	N/A (State opposed directed verdict)	Trial court erred because evidence was insufficient as a matter of law	Denial upheld; court defers to jury credibility findings and finds circumstantial evidence excludes reasonable innocence hypotheses
Refusal to submit verdict form by interrogatories	General verdict form was appropriate; cited Terry and related precedents	Refused interrogatories deprived Ortega of a unanimous finding on a particular theory and hindered appeal	Majority declined to reach merits and affirmed because Ortega provided no supporting authority; argument deemed inadequately briefed
Appellate review standard for unbriefed arguments	Court will not research issues for appellant; require citations/convincing argument	Argued Terry does not support State and that interrogatories were necessary	Majority enforced briefing rule and refused to consider the interrogatories claim; concurrences/dissents argued the rule should not bar review and would remand

Griffin v. United States, 502 U.S. 46 (U.S. 1991) (recognized use of general verdicts when alternate theories are charged)
Terry v. State, 371 Ark. 50 (Ark. 2007) (addressed sufficiency under alternate capital-murder theories; general verdict sustainable if supported by one ground)
Norris v. State, 368 S.W.3d 52 (Ark. 2010) (similar treatment of alternate-theory sufficiency in capital cases)
Nance v. State, 323 Ark. 583 (Ark. 1996) (circumstantial evidence constitutes substantial evidence when other reasonable hypotheses are excluded)
Kelly v. State, 85 S.W.3d 893 (Ark. 2002) (court will not consider appellate arguments lacking citation or convincing argument)
Pearls v. State, 584 S.W.2d 1 (Ark. 1979) (jury instructions must require proof of each material element beyond a reasonable doubt)