Allen v. State
2016 Ark. App. 537
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Shaun Allen, the brother of his victim’s stepfather, was convicted by a Faulkner County jury of two counts of rape of a child under 14.
- Victim M.R., age twelve at trial, testified that Allen "put his middle part where he pees from into my middle part where I pee from," describing penetration using child terminology.
- Semen was recovered on M.R.’s panties; forensic DNA testimony matched Allen as the source.
- Allen moved for directed verdicts asserting insufficient evidence because M.R. did not use explicit anatomical terms and lacked detailed description of the act.
- Allen also argued on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting M.R.’s prior consistent statements under the hearsay/prior-consistent-statement rule.
- The trial court convicted Allen; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Allen) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / directed verdict | M.R.’s testimony showing penetration plus DNA evidence is substantial evidence supporting conviction | M.R. never used anatomical words or detailed account; testimony insufficient to prove penetration | Affirmed — victim’s testimony (using her terms) showed knowledge and penetration; DNA corroboration rendered evidence substantial |
| Admission of prior consistent statements | Admission was proper / not preserved by appellant at trial (State relies on preservation rules) | Trial court abused discretion by admitting hearsay prior-consistent statements under Ark. R. Evid. 801(d)(1) | Not preserved for appeal; court declined to address merits; no reversible error shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Tinsley v. State, 993 S.W.2d 898 (1999) (child’s nontechnical terms for body parts can suffice if they show knowledge of anatomy)
- Lamb v. State, 275 S.W.3d 144 (2008) (uncorroborated victim testimony showing penetration can be sufficient for conviction)
- Bishop v. State, 839 S.W.2d 6 (1992) (victim’s testimony can satisfy rape elements without corroboration)
- McCoy v. State, 123 S.W.3d 901 (2003) (trial court evidentiary rulings reviewed for abuse of discretion and require prejudice for reversal)
- Johnson v. State, 344 S.W.3d 74 (2009) (appellate courts will not consider arguments raised for first time on appeal)