Brown v. State, 2015 Ark. 16

Crimes: Three rapes, three aggravated robberies, and kidnapping occurred in January 2001; victims were threatened and could not fully identify the attacker.
Evidence: Biological samples collected in 2001 produced a DNA profile entered into the state database; a national CODIS match to Brown occurred in August 2010.
Charges & timing: State filed charges in August 2011; Brown moved to declare Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-109(b)(1)(B) and (j) unconstitutional and moved to dismiss as time-barred.
Statute at issue: § 5-1-109 eliminates the statute of limitations for rape when biological evidence yields a DNA profile and prevents the statute of limitations from precluding prosecution when DNA testing implicates a person identified through state or national DNA databases.
Trial & dispositions: Motions to dismiss and to declare the statute unconstitutional were denied; Brown was convicted by jury in October 2013 on multiple counts and sentenced to an aggregate term of 495 years.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether applying post‑2005/2009 amendments to toll or eliminate limitations violates the Ex Post Facto Clause	Brown: Applying amendments to charges whose limitations expired (Class Y felonies) is retroactive punishment barred by ex post facto principles (Stogner)	State: Argument not preserved; no contemporaneous objection at trial, so appellate review waived	Court: Ex post facto claim forfeited for failure to preserve; declined to reach merits
Whether § 5-1-109(b)(1)(B) & (j) violate Equal Protection by treating DNA‑implicated defendants differently	Brown: No rational basis to eliminate limitations for DNA-identified persons but not others; DNA match ≠ proof of guilt and errors are possible	State: Legislature rationally treated DNA differently because DNA is highly reliable and retains probative value over time	Court: Classification satisfies rational-basis review; statute is constitutional under Equal Protection

Stogner v. California, 539 U.S. 607 (2003) (post‑conviction extension of limitations can violate Ex Post Facto Clause)
Klinger v. Dep’t of Corr., 31 F.3d 727 (8th Cir. 1994) (equal protection requires similarly situated persons be treated alike)
McDole v. State, 339 Ark. 391 (1999) (discussion of equal protection and when groups are similarly situated)
Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 (1980) (narrow exceptions to contemporaneous‑objection rule)
Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 (2002) (Wicks exceptions are narrowly construed)
Ussery v. State, 308 Ark. 67 (1992) (contemporaneous objection required to preserve appellate review)
Smith v. State, 354 Ark. 226 (2003) (equal protection requires classifications be based on real differences)
Christopher v. State, 340 Ark. 404 (2000) (contemporaneous‑objection principle reiterated)
Bader v. State, 344 Ark. 241 (2001) (constitutional issues also generally require contemporaneous objection)