SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No. CR 05-676
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPEAL FROM THE FAULKNER
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
HON. DAVID LEE REYNOLDS,
COURT OF APPEALS REVERSED.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – SUFFICIENCY OF THE EVIDENCE – PROCEDURALLY
BARRED. – Where the appellant did not renew his motion for a directed verdict after
the presentation of his sub-rebuttal evidence, which was the last evidence submitted,
under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1, he waived any question pertaining to the sufficiency of
the evidence to support his conviction for rape.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – ARK. R. EVID. 404(B) – PEDOPHILE EXCEPTION. – It was not
a manifest abuse of discretion for the trial judge to admit another young girl’s
testimony against the appellant under the pedophile exception to Ark. R. Evid. 404(b),
where both children were female, where both were nine years old when the abuse
began, where both met the appellant at church, where both were under his supervision
at church, where both were frequently invited to his home, where both were at times
sitting on appellant when the abuse occurred, where both reported abuse while home
alone with him, and where he was not related to either of the girls.
CRIMINAL PROCEDURE – EXCLUSION OF EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE OF PRIOR
ACQUITTAL. – An acquittal does not equate with a finding of innocence or a finding
that the complaining witness’s testimony was false, but rather an acquittal means simply
that the jury was not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt that the charges were true;
given these considerations, and the possibility of prejudice to both sides which a
mention of appellant’s previous trial could have entailed, the trial court’s exclusion of
the evidence of appellant’s previous acquittal was not a manifest abuse of discretion.
EVIDENCE – PEDOPHILE EXCEPTION – SEXUAL ACTS NEED NOT BE IDENTICAL. – The
trial court did not manifestly abuse its discretion in admitting testimony that the
appellant held anoth