 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Shanks v. State4/27/2005
forward bow. Based upon his investigation and statements by the Hales, he testified that Mr. DeClercq was obligated to yield the right-of-way to the ski boat. He stated, "they should have turned to the right, slowed down, gone to neutral or gone in reverse in order not to cross the path of the Cobalt."
Appellant also presented the deposition testimony of Robert Charlesworth, former marine patrol supervisor with the Garland County Sheriff's Office. He went to the scene of the accident the night after it happened. He saw debris in the water, ten to twelve beer cans, styrofoam, and a life preserver, but no boats. He first assisted in the search for Mrs. DeClercq. Then, he went to the Kahuna Bay docks, where he found both boats. He opined that the ski boat had the right-of-way based on the Federal Rules of Navigation, and that the standard procedure is for a boat to turn to the right to avoid a collision. He did not know whether the ski boat turned or attempted to turn to the right.
After considering the testimony, the trial court, sitting without a jury, found appellant guilty of two counts of negligent homicide. The court sentenced appellant to twelve months' imprisonment on each count with the sentences to be run concurrently. This appeal followed.
For his sole point on appeal, appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding him guilty of negligent homicide. Specifically, he argues that the State failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he was negligent, as defined in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-202 (Repl. 1997). However, appellant's argument is not preserved for appellate review. Rule 33.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure (2004) provides, in pertinent part:
(b) In a non-jury trial, if a motion for dismissal is to be made, it shall be made at the close of all of the evidence. The motion for dismissal shall state the specific grounds therefor. If the defendant moved for dismissal at the conclusion of the prosecution's evidence, then the motion must be renewed at the close of all of the evidence.
(c) The failure of a defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at the times and in the manner required in subsections (a) and (b) above will constitute a waiver of any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict or judgment. . . .
Here, the trial court considered deposition testimony from three witnesses: one for the State and two for appellant. Although Partridge testified immediately after Johnson, the trial court did not consider the State's case closed until it had read the deposition testimony of the State's expert witness. Appellant made his motion for directed verdict at this point. Neither the State nor appellant objected to this procedure, and it is not an issue before us on appeal.
However, after the trial court denied his motion for directed verdict, appellant presented deposition testimony of two witnesses and then closed his case without renewing his motion for directed verdict. Under Rule 33.1, failure to renew a directed-verdict motion waives the question of sufficiency of the evidence. See also McClina v. State, 354 Ark. 384, 123 S.W.3d 883 (2003). Appellant's failure to renew his motion precludes us from addressing his argument. Accordingly, we affirm his conviction.
Affirmed.
Gladwin and Baker, JJ., agree.
Page 1 2 3 4 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|