Today at the Court of Appeals the State won all 10 criminal appeals. The issues were 6 sufficiency challenges, 1 Anders brief, and 3 other challenges. The only decisions that really merit any discussion at all were McElroy and Armstrong.
In McElroy, the appellant challenged the latitude given to the Prosecutor in voir dire to essentially fact qualify the jury. While the Court of Appeals would have affirmed regardless, the appellant failed to preserve the argument when he both failed to ask for any admonitions or relief on objection and stated that the jury was acceptable for the defense. The appellant cannot challenge the voir dire if he then accepts the jury as satisfactory. See Davis v. State, 365 Ark. 634, 232 S.W.3d 476 (2006).
In Armstrong, the appellant challenged the sufficiency of the evidence in that the accomplice’s testimony was not sufficiently corroborated. However, the argument was not preserved because the directed verdict motion below was not on this basis. The lesson is to make sure the directed verdict motions are specific to each and every lesser-included, each element, and each basis that will be challenged on appeal.