Perez v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 291

Juan Perez was convicted by a jury of three counts of rape involving victim K.W., who was 10–11 years old when the offenses occurred; he received three concurrent 25‑year terms.
A separate rape charge involving a different victim (G.K.) was tried alongside Perez’s K.W. charges, but the sentencing order for that separate case was not included in the appeal record and was not appealed by Perez.
Perez moved for a directed verdict at trial, arguing insufficient evidence; he renewed that sufficiency challenge on appeal.
K.W. testified to more than twenty incidents of molestation over about a year, describing multiple specific episodes involving anal and oral penetration, use of a condom and lubricant, and gifts given afterward.
K.W. did not disclose the abuse until questioned about unrelated misconduct; he made one false statement to an interviewer (claiming Perez threatened to kill him) but maintained the molestation allegations were true. A nurse found no physical trauma.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether evidence was sufficient to support convictions for rape of K.W.	Perez: testimony had numerous inconsistencies and motive to fabricate; thus conviction rests on speculation.	State: K.W.’s detailed testimony and accounts to a forensic interviewer were sufficient; credibility matters for the jury.	Affirmed — K.W.’s uncorroborated testimony, if believed, was substantial evidence supporting the rape convictions.

Steele v. State, 434 S.W.3d 424 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (directed‑verdict/sufficiency challenge standard)
Davis v. State, 459 S.W.3d 821 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (review limited to evidence supporting the verdict; view evidence in light most favorable to the State)
Todd v. State, 465 S.W.2d 435 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (notice of appeal must designate the judgment or order appealed)
Brown v. State, 265 S.W.3d 772 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008) (inconsistencies in victim’s testimony are for the jury to resolve)