Opinion
Delivered July 10, 1995
The title to Rule 33 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure shall be renamed "Motions for Directed Verdict and Special Procedures During Jury Trial," effective immediately.
The following rule regarding motions for directed verdict in criminal cases is hereby adopted and is effective immediately as Rule 33.1 of the Rules of Criminal Procedure, with the current sections of Rule 33 renumbered successively:
Motions for Directed Verdict. When there has been a trial by jury, the failure of a defendant to move for a directed verdict at the conclusion of the evidence presented by the prosecution and again at the close of the case because of insufficiency of the evidence will constitute a waiver of any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the jury verdict. A motion for a directed verdict based on insufficiency of the evidence must specify the respect in which the evidence is deficient; a motion merely stating that the evidence is insufficient for conviction does not preserve for appeal issues relating to a specific deficiency such as insufficient proof on the elements of the offense. A renewal of a previous motion for a directed verdict at the close of all of the evidence preserves the issue of insufficient evidence for appeal.
Court's Comment to Rule 33.1 (1995): This rule is former A.R.Cr.P. 36.21(b). The word "again" has been added to the first sentence to emphasize the requirement that an appropriate motion be made after the State's case and at the close of the case. The next to the last sentence was added to codify the holding in Walker v. State, 318 Ark. 107, 883 S.W.2d 831 (1994), in which the Supreme Court expressed the standard as follows: "We draw a bright line and hold that a motion for a directed verdict in a criminal case must state the specific ground of the motion." Walker at 109. For example, in Walker a motion simply stating that the evidence was insufficient for a conviction of first or second degree murder or manslaughter did not preserve for appeal issues relating to whether the state proved that the defendant had the requisite culpable mental state for any of those offenses. The last sentence was added to reflect the holding in Durham v. State, 320 Ark. 689, 899 S.W.2d 470 (1995), which did not require a party to repeat the specific deficiencies in the evidence when the motion is renewed.