Brown v. State, 2010 Ark. 420

Brown was charged by information with five counts of sexual assault in the second degree relating to allegations that he abused his eight-year-old neighbor, B.R.
He was convicted at trial of one count of second-degree sexual assault; four counts were nolle pressed.
Turn’s testimony, describing a 34-year-old uncharged misconduct, was admitted at sentencing over Brown’s objection.
Brown challenged the sufficiency of the evidence, the admission of Turn’s testimony at sentencing, and sought posttrial relief
On appeal, the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed the conviction but reversed and remanded for resentencing; this Court granted review to address sentencing and related issues.
The Supreme Court ultimately affirmed the conviction and the sentence, holding no abuse of discretion in admitting Turn’s testimony and that the sentence fell within statutory limits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is there sufficient evidence to support second-degree sexual assault?	Brown argues BR’s parents coached her; testimony is not credible.	State presented substantial evidence including BR’s detailed testimony.	Yes; substantial evidence supports the conviction.
Was Turri’s 34-year-old uncharged conduct properly admitted at sentencing?	Turri's testimony is probative of Brown’s character/aggravation.	Testimony was prejudicial and remote, and Rush limits apply.	Yes; admissible as sentencing evidence under 16-97-103(5)/(6).
Should Brown’s sentence have been reduced under 16-90-107(e)?	There was passion or prejudice warranting reduction.	Judge properly exercised discretion; within statutory range.	No; trial court did not abuse discretion in denying reduction.
Did the trial court abuse its discretion in allowing Turn’s testimony under Rule 404(b) and related authorities?	Rule 404(b) should bar remote, uncharged conduct at sentencing.	Sentencing evidence permissible under 16-97-103 and precedent.	No; appropriate under the sentencing framework and case law.

Crawford v. State, 208 S.W.3d 146 (2005) (admissibility of sentencing evidence under 16-97-103(5)/(6))
Hill v. State, 887 S.W.2d 275 (1994) (sentencing evidence governed by rules of admissibility)
MacKool v. State, 231 S.W.3d 676 (2006) (admission of character evidence at sentencing permissible)
Williams v. State, 214 S.W.3d 829 (2005) (subsequent offenses admissible at sentencing)
Henderson v. State, 910 S.W.2d 656 (1995) (limits on appellate review of sentencing within statutory range)
McClish v. State, 962 S.W.2d 332 (1998) (courts do not reduce within statutory range based on excessiveness alone)