Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 289
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
No. CR-14-1093
MAURICE LANGFORD Opinion Delivered May 6, 2015
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE JEFFERSON
V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2013-703-5]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JODI RAINES
APPELLEE DENNIS, JUDGE
AFFIRMED
RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge
This is an appeal from a bench trial in which the Jefferson County Circuit Court
convicted Maurice Langford of sexual indecency with a child. The court sentenced him to
four years’ probation, ordered him to register as a sex offender, and fined him $5,000. On
appeal, Langford argues that the circuit court erred when it denied his motion for directed
verdict. We affirm.
At trial, Officer Edwards, M.H. (the juvenile victim), and Detective Johnson testified
for the State. Officer Edwards testified that, on September 27, 2013, he was dispatched to
Laurel Street concerning a call that two black males had entered an abandoned house. He
explained that when he arrived, he saw that the house door had been kicked in and he
smelled marijuana. He testified that he entered the house, announced himself as a police
officer, and asked that anyone inside come out with his hands up. He testified that Langford
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 289
appeared and informed him that another male was in the house. He stated that he and
Langford yelled the male’s name, and M.H. appeared. Officer Edwards placed Langford and
M.H. in handcuffs and escorted them to his car. He explained that after placing Langford and
M.H. in handcuffs, Officer Boykin arrived at the scene. He testified that he and Officer
Boykin walked through the house. He testified that the house reeked of marijuana, but they
did not find any drugs. He stated that they found a condom wrapper with a liquid substance
on it in the living room. Officer Edwards testified that after finding the condom wrapper, he
contacted his supervisor and reported the incident. His supervisor then called a detective.
He stated that the detective arrived, photographed the scene, and took the condom wrapper
into evidence.
M.H. testified that, on September 27, 2013, he was fourteen years old. He explained
that on that day, he saw Langford while riding his bike to a football game at Pine Bluff High
School. He noted that he knew Langford through mutual friends and that Langford had
previously shown him pornographic videos. He testified that Langford asked him to smoke
marijuana and he agreed. He explained that he and Langford then went to an abandoned
house, where Langford gave him marijuana and they smoked it. M.H. testified that while
they were smoking, Langford removed a laptop from his book bag and played pornographic
videos on the computer and told him to watch the videos. M.H. testified that Langford said
the female in the video was fifteen years old. M.H. explained that, after watching the videos,
Langford said “he was going to give me (M.H.) some head for some money . . . like a
hundred and something dollars.” M.H. testified he did not have a chance to respond because
2
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 289
the police then entered the house. M.H. explained that when the police arrived, Langford
went toward the police but he hid in the closet because he was scared. M.H. stated that he
did not know how the condom wrapper got into the house.
Detective Johnson testified that on September 27, 2013, he responded to a call
concerning two black males in a vacant residence. He testified that inside the residence he
saw a condom wrapper on the floor covered with some type of lubricant. He testified that
after seeing the wrapper, he took M.H. and Langford to the detective office. He testified that
he obtained a search warrant to search Langford’s book bag and found recording equipment,
multiple SD cards,1 and an iPad. He testified that he then obtained a search warrant for the
SD cards and found videos of a pornographic nature on them but could not determine the age
of the individuals from the videos. He stated that Langford told him that he worked in the
film industry.
After Detective Johnson’s testimony, the State rested. Langford then moved for a
directed verdict. Specifically, Langford’s counsel stated
at this time, I move for a directed verdict, that the State has not put on evidence that
is sufficient to show that on this date that Mr. Langford solicited another person to
engage in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity or sexual contact. I do not
believe the State has met their burden of proof. They have to show beyond a
reasonable doubt that—that does not give rise to suspicion, that you have to fill in the
blanks with this. Obviously, from the testimony of [M.H.], he cannot seem to get out
the—just the basics: color, descriptions, phrases that are used. He also testified that he
was smoking marijuana prior to the date that he went into this house with Mr.
Langford and he smoked marijuana in this house. It is very possible—and I—I will say
from his testimony that he does not have a good grasp of—on some things. And so I
would move the Court to direct a verdict in favor of Mr. Langford.
1
SD cards are digital memory cards.
3
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 289
The circuit court denied the motion.
Langford then testified on his own behalf. He testified that on September 27, 2013,
he was forty years old. He stated that on that day, M.H. invited him to smoke marijuana at
the abandoned house. He testified that M.H. told him that he had hidden marijuana at the
house but when they arrived, they could not find the drugs. He testified that he did not show
M.H. pornographic videos on his laptop and noted that he had not owned a laptop since
2009. He admitted that he owns an iPad and had the iPad with him on that day. He also
testified that he did not offer M.H. money to perform a sexual act and that he did not know
M.H.’s age.
Following his testimony, Langford renewed his motion for a directed verdict. The
circuit court denied the motion. The court then found Langford guilty of sexual indecency
with a child pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-14-110(a)(1) (Repl. 2013).2 The
court sentenced him to four years’ probation, ordered him to register as a sex offender, and
fined him $5,000. Langford then filed this appeal.
On appeal, Langford argues that the circuit court erred by denying his motion for a
directed verdict. Specifically, Langford argues that the evidence was insufficient because the
State produced only circumstantial evidence and did not offer any direct evidence that he
solicited M.H. to engage in sexual contact. Langford also argues that the evidence is
2
Under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-14-110(a)(1), a person commits sexual
indecency with a child if being eighteen years of age or older, the person solicits another
person who is less than fifteen years of age or who is represented to be less than fifteen years
of age to engage in sexual intercourse, deviate sexual activity, or sexual contact.
4
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 289
insufficient because the State did not present forensic evidence, noting that the condom
wrapper was never tested.
A directed-verdict motion is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Rounsaville
v. State, 372 Ark. 252, 273 S.W.3d 486 (2008). The test for determining the sufficiency of
the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or
circumstantial. Alexander v. State, 78 Ark. App. 56, 77 S.W.3d 544 (2002). Substantial
evidence is evidence of sufficient certainty and precision to compel a conclusion one way or
another and pass beyond mere suspicion or conjecture. Id. A motion for directed verdict
requires the movant to apprise the circuit court of the specific basis on which the motion is
made. See, e.g., Rounsaville, 372 Ark. 252, 273 S.W.3d 486. Arguments not raised at trial will
not be addressed for the first time on appeal, and parties cannot change the grounds for an
objection on appeal but are bound by the scope and nature of the objections and arguments
presented at trial. See id.
Here, Langford’s arguments on appeal were not part of his directed-verdict motion in
the circuit court. Specifically, at trial, Langford argued that the evidence was insufficient
because M.H.’s testimony was unreliable. However, on appeal, Langford asserts that the
evidence was insufficient because the State produced only circumstantial evidence and because
the condom wrapper was never tested. Accordingly, Langford changed the basis for his
directed-verdict motion on appeal, and his arguments are not preserved for our review.
However, even had Langford preserved his arguments, the circuit court properly denied his
motion for a directed verdict. M.H.’s testimony was sufficient evidence to support Langford’s
5
Cite as 2015 Ark. App. 289
conviction. Further, any forensic evidence on the condom wrapper is irrelevant to the offense
of sexual indecency. Sexual indecency only requires solicitation of sexual intercourse or
contact. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-110(a)(1).
Affirmed.
GLADWIN, C.J., and HARRISON, J., agree.
Potts Law Office, by: Gary W. Potts, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Evelyn D. Gomez, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
6