NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
D.P. MARSHALL JR., Judge
26 September 2007
PAMELA T. SHELNUT,
AN APPEAL FROM THE SALINE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
THE HONORABLE GRISHAM A.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
Pamela Shelnut appeals her conviction for rape as an accomplice and the denial
of her motion for a new trial. We reject all of Shelnut’s arguments and affirm.
George Keen started raping Shelnut’s then-nine-year-old daughter, SH, in late-
1999 or early-2000 after he moved in with the family. Shelnut and Keen married in
February 2000. Keen continued to rape SH repeatedly until 2005, when SH confided
in her stepmother who reported the rape to counselors and the police. A jury
convicted Shelnut of rape as an accomplice, finding that she knew, or had reason to
know, that Keen had raped her daughter, but failed to prevent it despite her legal duty
to do so. Ark. Code Ann. §§ 5-14-103(a)(3)(A) (Repl. 2006); 5-2-402(2) (Repl.
2006); 5-2-403(a)(3) (Repl. 2006). After Shelnut’s trial, Keen pleaded guilty to raping
First, Shelnut’s argument that the prosecution should have charged her with
Permitting Abuse of a Minor under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-221 (Repl. 2006), rather
than rape, fails. The prosecutor had discretion to charge her with either crime, and
the evidence satisfied the rape statute’s elements. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103; Simpson
v. State, 310 Ark. 493, 498, 837 S.W.2d 475, 478 (1992).
Shelnut is also mistaken when she argues that she did not have a legal duty to
protect SH from rape. In Hutcheson v. State, this court affirmed an accomplice-to-rape
conviction in similar circumstances. 92 Ark. App. 307, 213 S.W.3d 25 (2005). In that