Rule 33.1 - Motions for Directed Verdict(a) In a jury trial, if a motion for directed verdict is to be made, it shall be made at the close of the evidence offered by the prosecution and at the close of all of the evidence. A motion for directed verdict shall state the specific grounds therefor.(b) In a nonjury trial, if a motion for dismissal is to be made, it shall be made at the close of all of the evidence. The motion for dismissal shall state the specific grounds therefor. If the defendant moved for dismissal at the conclusion of the prosecution's evidence, then the motion must be renewed at the close of all of the evidence.(c) The failure of a defendant to challenge the sufficiency of the evidence at the times and in the manner required in subsections (a) and (b) above will constitute a waiver of any question pertaining to the sufficiency of the evidence to support the verdict or judgment. A motion for directed verdict or for dismissal 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 does not preserve for appeal issues relating to a specific deficiency such as insufficient proof on the elements of the offense. A renewal at the close of all of the evidence of a previous motion for directed verdict or for dismissal preserves the issue of insufficient evidence for appeal. If for any reason a motion or a renewed motion at the close of all of the evidence for directed verdict or for dismissal is not ruled upon, it is deemed denied for purposes of obtaining appellate review on the question of the sufficiency of the evidence. Reporter's Notes: The rule was divided into subsections for ease of reference. Subsection (a) applies to jury trials, subsection (b) to bench trials, and subsection (c) to both. In both jury and bench trials, the defendant is required to notify the trial court of the particular reasons why the state's evidence is insufficient in order to preserve that issue for appeal. This requirement in a bench trial is a change in previous procedure and overrules the decision in Strickland v. State, 322 Ark. 312, 909 S.W.2d 318 (1995). See generally Note, An Analysis of Arkansas's Exceptional Treatment of the Contemporaneous Objection Rule in Criminal Bench Trials, 19 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 291(1997).