Bynum v. State
2017 Ark. App. 41
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Appellant James Bynum was convicted by a Scott County jury of ten counts of fourth-degree sexual assault (Counts 1–10) relating to victim A.H., and two counts of second-degree sexual assault (Counts 11 and 13) relating to victims T.H. and C.P.; total sentence 1,200 months.
- A.H. (born May 1989) testified to repeated abuse beginning at about age 14; Counts 1–10 were based solely on A.H.’s allegations.
- T.H. (13 at trial) testified to two incidents in summer 2013: one in a Hot Springs hotel and one at appellant’s home (Count 11).
- C.P. (24 at trial) testified to two incidents while a youth on trips and at appellant’s home; one incident occurred in a Tulsa hotel and one in appellant’s home (Count 13).
- Charges for Counts 1–10 were filed in September 2015, more than five years after the statute of limitations deadline triggered by A.H.’s 18th birthday.
- Appellant moved for directed verdicts on Counts 1–10, 11, and 13; the trial court denied the motions. On appeal the court reversed and dismissed Counts 1–10 as time-barred and affirmed the convictions on Counts 11 and 13.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Bynum) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| 1. Are Counts 1–10 time‑barred by the statute of limitations? | Prosecution timely under tolling/other theories (implicit); sought to proceed. | A.H. born May 1989 → SOL required prosecution within 3 years of his 18th birthday; charges filed 2015, so time‑barred. | Reversed and dismissed Counts 1–10 as filed after the statutory deadline. |
| 2. Was there sufficient evidence for guilty verdicts on Counts 11 and 13 (directed‑verdict challenge)? | Victims’ testimony and circumstantial evidence sufficed to prove sexual contact and elements beyond conjecture. | Insufficient evidence on elements (age, touching, venue/jurisdiction). | Affirmed convictions for Counts 11 and 13—substantial evidence supported verdicts. |
| 3. Did Bynum preserve venue objection for Counts 11 and 13? | Venue was proper. | Venue improper (some incidents occurred outside Scott County). | Venue objection waived—no timely trial objection; not preserved on appeal. |
| 4. Did the State have to prove jurisdiction/where the offenses occurred? | No duty to prove jurisdiction absent affirmative evidence showing lack of jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction lacking because some alleged acts occurred outside Scott County (Hot Springs, Tulsa). | No positive evidence showed crimes occurred outside Scott County; State not required to prove jurisdiction; convictions stand. |
Key Cases Cited
- Davis v. Reed, 316 Ark. 575 (distinguishing venue and jurisdiction; venue can be waived)
- DeWitt v. State, 306 Ark. 559 (State must offer jurisdictional proof only if affirmative evidence shows lack of jurisdiction)
- King v. State, 361 Ark. 402 (jurisdiction is an element of an offense to be proved beyond a reasonable doubt)
- Bridges v. State, 46 Ark. App. 198 (jury may draw reasonable inferences from circumstantial evidence)
- Neal v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 384 (credibility is for the jury; court views evidence in light most favorable to verdict)
- Rymor Builders, Inc. v. Tanglewood Plumbing Co., Inc., 100 Ark. App. 141 (arguments raised first on reply are untimely and forfeited)
- Owens v. State, 354 Ark. 644 (arguments first raised in reply brief are not considered)