Ross Leon Segroves v. State of Arkansas , 2023 Ark. App. 289 ( 2023 )

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 289ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION I
No. CR-22-560
ROSS LEON SEGROVES Opinion Delivered May 17, 2023
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
WESTERN DISTRICT
[NO. 16JCR-20-320]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE HONORABLE CINDY THYER, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Judge
Appellant, Ross Leon Segroves, appeals his conviction for one count of rape for which
he was sentenced to ten years in prison. Segroves alleges that there is insufficient evidence
to support his conviction. We affirm.
Segroves admitted that he and a woman who worked for him (“the victim”) had sexual
relations on December 4, 2019. That morning, Segroves picked up the victim and drove her
to his auto refurbishing shop that was next to his house. The victim and Segroves were
drinking on and off that day. She believed that Segroves spiked a drink he had made for
her, causing her to lose consciousness. When she regained consciousness on Segroves’s
living room couch, Segroves’s penis was in her mouth, which she slightly bit to get him to
remove it. The victim said that Segroves then forcibly held her down and had sexual
intercourse with her despite her physical and verbal protests for him to stop.
The victim called a friend to pick her up and take her home. Her boyfriend was
informed of what happened, and her boyfriend called an officer to come to the house. After
speaking with the victim, the officer summoned an ambulance to take the victim to the
hospital for examination. Segroves voluntarily went to the police station to be interviewed,
but law enforcement determined that he was intoxicated, so Segroves stayed overnight to
sober up before being interviewed. The next morning, after waiving his Miranda rights,
Segroves admitted that he and the victim were both drunk and should not have had sex.
However, Segroves maintained that it was consensual, and he denied having drugged the
victim.
Segroves’s attorney moved for a directed verdict, contending that the State failed to
prove forcible compulsion and that the victim was an inconsistent, unbelievable witness.
The circuit court denied the motion, the jury found Segroves guilty of one count of rape,
and this appeal followed.
As pertinent here, a person commits the offense of rape if he engages in sexual
intercourse or deviate sexual activity with another person by forcible compulsion or who is
incapable of consent because she is physically helpless or mentally incapacitated. Ark. Code
Ann. § 5-14-103(a) (Supp. 2021). “Sexual intercourse” means penetration, however slight,
of the labia majora by a penis. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(13) (Supp. 2021). “Deviate sexual
activity” is defined in part as the penetration, however slight, of the anus or mouth of a
person by the penis of another person. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(1)(A). “Forcible
compulsion” means physical force or a threat, express or implied, of death or physical injury
2
to any person. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(3). “Physically helpless” in this context includes
being unconscious. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(8)(A).
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence
in the light most favorable to the State, and only the evidence supporting the verdict will be
considered. Walden v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 177, __ S.W.3d __. We recited the evidence
above in that light. A conviction is affirmed if substantial evidence exists to support it,
meaning the evidence is forceful enough to compel a conclusion beyond suspicion or
conjecture. Allen v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 110, 640 S.W.3d 446. The jury is responsible for
determining witness credibility and resolving any inconsistencies in the evidence. Id.Reviewing this appeal under the proper standards, we hold that there was substantial
evidence to support Segroves’s conviction for rape. Segroves admittedly had sexual relations
with the victim that day. The sole issue was whether the acts were committed either by
forcible compulsion or while the victim was incapable of consent. A rape victim’s testimony
may constitute substantial evidence to sustain a conviction of rape. Brown v. State, 374 Ark.
341, 288 S.W.3d 226 (2008). The rape victim’s testimony need not be corroborated, nor is
scientific evidence required, and the victim’s testimony describing penetration is enough for
a conviction. Id. Even when an appellant denies all the allegations or contradicts the victim’s
testimony, the jury is free to disbelieve the appellant’s self-serving testimony and believe the
victim’s testimony instead. Strong v. State, 372 Ark. 404, 277 S.W.3d 159 (2008). Where
the jury as trier of fact has given credence to inconsistent testimony, the appellate court will
not reverse unless the testimony is inherently improbable, physically impossible, or so clearly
3
unbelievable that reasonable minds could not differ thereon. Id. The jury obviously believed
the victim’s testimony that Segroves committed at least one act of rape against her.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN and GRUBER, JJ., agree.
William O. “Bill” James, Jr., and Drew Curtis, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Clayton P. Orr, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
4