Breeden v. State
2013 Ark. 145
| Ark. | 2013Background
- Appellant Jackie M. Breeden Jr. was convicted by a Benton County jury of rape of his minor daughter and sentenced to life imprisonment.
- Appellant’s court-appointed counsel filed a no-merit brief under Anders and Arkansas Rule 4-3(k); Appellant submitted a pro se response.
- The State and Appellant addressed preservation and sufficiency issues, including the age element and admission of photographs.
- Evidence showed A.B. began sexual activity with Appellant around age 11 and continued until age 14; a nurse’s exam noted hymenal damage; Appellant admitted sexual acts in a recorded statement.
- The circuit court admitted three photographs depicting A.B. at ages ten to twelve; defense argued lack of relevance, State argued probative value outweighed prejudice.
- The Court affirmed the conviction and granted counsel’s motion to withdraw after reviewing assigned issues and finding no reversible error.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of age evidence | Breeden argues age element not proven | Breeden contends insufficient age proof | Sufficiency established; substantial evidence supports age under fourteen |
| Admission of victim photographs | Breeden argues photos were irrelevant | Breeden contends photos were properly excluded | Photographs admissible; relevant to age, probative value outweighs prejudice |
| Preservation and scope of directed-verdict challenge | Breeden preserves only age-evidence challenge | Sufficiency of age was preserved via directed verdict requests | Directed-verdict preserved only as to age element |
| Ineffective assistance and other trial-errors on direct appeal | Breeden asserts ineffective assistance and other errors | State argues issues not preserved or not suitable for direct appeal | Issues not reviewable on direct appeal; affirmed |
| Due process and coercion claims | Breeden claims denial of counsel and coerced confession | State argues no preservation and no reversible error | Claims not preserved for review; affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Lacy v. State, 377 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. 2010) (double jeopardy and sufficiency review framework)
- Bradley v. State, 426 S.W.3d 363 (Ark. 2013) (sufficiency standard and evidentiary review)
- Brown v. State, 288 S.W.3d 226 (Ark. 2008) (un corroborated testimony may sustain rape conviction)
- Kelley v. State, 292 S.W.3d 297 (Ark. 2009) (no need for corroboration of rape victim testimony)
- Vance v. State, 384 S.W.3d 515 (Ark. 2011) (jury credibility and factual resolution within appellate review)
- James v. State, 372 S.W.3d 800 (Ark. 2010) (preservation of objections; no review of unraised issues)
- Gilliland v. State, 361 S.W.3d 279 (Ark. 2010) (preservation and standard for appellate review)
- Anderson v. State, 385 S.W.3d 214 (Ark. 2011) (admissibility of photographs; discretion of trial court)
- Gulley v. State, 423 S.W.3d 569 (Ark. 2012) (avoid reversal absent prejudice; photogrpahs proper when helpful)