He filed a direct appeal of his conviction raising the sole argument that there was insufficient evidence of penetration for the third count. Beaver v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 188 *1. The Court of Appeals affirmed, quoting the then-eight-year-old victim's testimony at trial: I call that body part that I just touched there [a penis] the tenders.

In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and considers only the evidence that supports the verdict. Beaver v. State , 2014 Ark. App. 188. It is the jury's role as fact-finder to resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence, and the jury is free to choose to believe the State's account of the facts rather than the defendant's. Hill v. State , 2015 Ark. App. 700, 478 S.W.3d 225.

Moreover, it is the function of the jury, not the reviewing court, to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and to resolve any inconsistencies in the evidence. Beaver v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 188, at 2, 2014 WL 1092386. When doing so, the jury is entitled to draw any reasonable inference from the evidence and is not required to abandon common sense.

First, in consideration of whether there was substantial evidence to support the rape and sexual-indecency convictions, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Beaver v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 188, at 1. We will affirm a conviction when there is substantial evidence to support it, and substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture.

First, in consideration of whether there was substantial evidence to support the rape and sexual-indecency convictions, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Beaver v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 188, at 1, 2014 WL 1092386. We will affirm a conviction when there is substantial evidence to support it, and substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture.