Wiseman v. State
2017 Ark. App. 371
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Andrew Lee Wiseman Jr., in his early 30s, was tried by a jury in Hempstead County and convicted of raping his 14‑year‑old first cousin, SW; he was sentenced to 40 years' imprisonment.
- SW testified that at a family barbecue on July 6, 2014, Wiseman entered the bathroom, forced intercourse, said he had been "waiting," penetrated her with his penis, and she bled and saw "clear stuff" on tissue afterward; she initially gave false statements identifying another person but later identified Wiseman in a second interview and at trial.
- A sexual‑assault exam on July 8, 2014 produced a vaginal swab that contained sperm; forensic DNA testing matched Wiseman as the source "within all scientific certainty," excluding SW’s stepfather.
- Wiseman testified and presented an alibi/alternative-explanation: he and his girlfriend had consensual sex before the barbecue and his girlfriend said she used a towel and left it in the bathroom; Wiseman denied the allegation and disputed the tissue evidence.
- At close of the State’s case and after the defense case, Wiseman moved for a directed verdict arguing insufficient proof of penetration; the trial court denied both motions and the jury convicted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Wiseman) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to prove penetration for rape | SW’s testimony described penile‑vaginal penetration; DNA evidence (sperm in vaginal vault matching Wiseman) corroborates penetration | SW lied initially and was not credible; DNA and tissue could be explained by consensual sex prior to the barbecue | Court affirmed: testimony showing penetration plus DNA evidence is substantial evidence supporting conviction |
| Whether uncorroborated or inconsistent victim testimony precludes conviction | Victim testimony need not be corroborated; inconsistencies go to credibility for the jury | Inconsistencies undermine reliability and require acquittal | Court held inconsistencies are for the jury; victim testimony sufficient when corroborated by DNA |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. State, 385 S.W.3d 214 (appellate review of directed‑verdict/sufficiency standard)
- Starling v. State, 480 S.W.3d 158 (inconsistencies and credibility are for fact‑finder)
- Brown v. State, 288 S.W.3d 226 (child rape victim’s testimony can constitute substantial evidence)
- Kelley v. State, 292 S.W.3d 297 (testimony showing penetration is sufficient for conviction)
- Lamb v. State, 275 S.W.3d 144 (uncorroborated rape victim testimony showing penetration suffices)
- Allen v. State, 506 S.W.3d 278 (credibility and conflicting evidence are jury determinations)