Berks v. State
2013 Ark. App. 203
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Berks was convicted by jury of second-degree murder and aggravated residential burglary for the beating death of Wallace Taylor.
- Police and EMS responded to Taylor’s Hot Springs Village home after a 911 call from Jean McCarthy.
- Evidence at the scene showed extensive blood, trauma, and a disrupted home; a tank top with blood and a shoeprint were recovered.
- DNA on shoes found in a creek matched Berks; shoe-pattern impressions linked to the yellow tank top.
- A jailhouse witness and other associates testified about Berks’ threats and statements relating to Taylor, establishing motive and opportunity.
- Appellant challenged the denial of a directed verdict, Daubert/Foote hearing on a witness, admissibility of sexual-abuse allegations, and exclusion of late-arriving DNA evidence; the court affirmed the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Directed verdict sufficiency | Berks argues ambiguity on cause of death and lack of in-home presence. | State contends substantial evidence ties Berks to the crime. | Substantial evidence supports verdict. |
| Daubert/Foote hearing for an expert | Berks claims no Daubert/Foote hearing was conducted for Humphries’ testimony. | State contends discretion to test reliability was adequate. | No abuse of discretion; admissibility affirmed. |
| Admissibility of sexual-abuse allegation finding | Evidence of unsubstantiated sexual-abuse claim should be excluded as prejudicial. | Evidence relevant to motive and state of mind. | Court did not abuse discretion; evidence admissible. |
| DNA evidence timeliness and exclusion | Delays in reporting DNA prevented defense from analysis; request to exclude should have been granted. | State offered continuance; defense did not request it; no abuse of discretion. | No abuse of discretion; DNA evidence admitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Kumho Tire Co. v. Carmichael, 526 U.S. 137 (Supreme Court, 1999) (gatekeeping and reliability of expert testimony apply to all experts)
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharmaceuticals, 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court, 1993) (established gatekeeping for scientific evidence)
- Foote v. Farm Bureau Mutual Ins. Co., 341 Ark. 105, 14 S.W.3d 512 (Ark. Supreme Court, 2000) (Daubert/Foote framework in Arkansas)
- Gen. Elec. Co. v. Joiner, 522 U.S. 136 (Supreme Court, 1997) (abuse-of-discretion standard for admitting expert testimony)
- LeFever v. State, 91 Ark.App. 86, 208 S.W.3d 812 (Ark. App. 2005) (sufficiency standard; substantial evidence review)
- Harris v. State, 72 Ark.App. 227, 35 S.W.3d 819 (Ark. App. 2000) (evidentiary review; credibility issues for jury)
- Williams v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 675, 386 S.W.3d 609 (Ark. App. 2011) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Gaines v. State, 340 Ark. 99, 8 S.W.3d 547 (Ark. 2000) (evidence showing motive or state of mind)