546 S.W.3d 533
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Anne O’Hara Bynum delivered a stillborn fetus at home, wrapped the remains, placed them in plastic in her car, and later took them to the hospital; she had previously taken Arthrotec (misoprostol) and had a history of abortions.
- Bynum was charged with concealing birth (Class D felony) and abuse of a corpse; the trial court granted a directed verdict on abuse of a corpse; jury convicted on concealing birth and imposed the maximum six-year sentence.
- Bynum moved for directed verdict / dismissal arguing the statute did not apply to her (she sought medical help and brought remains to hospital within hours) and raised constitutional vagueness/privacy objections.
- Trial evidence included testimony about prior abortions, ingestion of labor-inducing medication, and statements made to a court-ordered competency examiner. The trial court admitted this evidence over pretrial objection.
- The court of appeals upheld sufficiency of the evidence and rejected preserved vagueness claims, but found the trial court abused its discretion by admitting evidence of prior abortions and pre-delivery medication as irrelevant and unfairly prejudicial; the court affirmed admission of the competency-exam statement but declined to reach unpreserved constitutional arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Bynum) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/statutory application of concealing-birth statute | The statute cannot criminalize withholding notice of a stillbirth from a mother when the defendant later sought medical help and delivered remains to hospital; no proof she intended to permanently conceal or prevent determination of life at birth | The evidence (wrapping remains, hiding them in car, locking car, placing where mother would not see) supports an inference of purposeful concealment under the statute | Affirmed — jury could infer purpose to conceal when she hid the corpse in her vehicle |
| Vagueness / due-process / privacy challenge to §5-26-203 | Statute is vague and infringes privacy; a reasonable person could not know that temporary non-reporting of a stillbirth (but later disclosure to attorneys/medical personnel) is criminal | The statute gives fair notice; no grace period or exception; presumed constitutional and State defended statute at trial | Rejected (preserved fair-notice argument failed); other constitutional arguments were not preserved for appellate review |
| Admission of evidence re: prior abortions and ingestion of Arthrotec | Such evidence was not relevant to whether she concealed the corpse and was highly prejudicial—allowed the jury to convict based on abortion history, not the charged offense | Evidence showed motive/plan to induce labor and conceal birth (Rule 404(b)); relevant to state of mind | Reversed on this point — trial court abused discretion admitting prior-abortion and drug-ingestion evidence as irrelevant or unfairly prejudicial |
| Admission of statement from pretrial competency exam | Admission violated constitutional and evidentiary protections (Fifth Amendment, physician-patient privilege, confidentiality of exams) | Competency exam waiver and Rule 503(d)(2) allow disclosure for the purpose ordered; expert merely reported a statement, not legal conclusion | Affirmed as to admissibility of the examiner’s testimony recounting the statement; but constitutional/evidentiary objections were not preserved, so the court did not reach their merits |
Key Cases Cited
- Anderson v. State, 533 S.W.3d 64 (Ark. 2017) (statutes presumed constitutional; resolve doubt in favor of constitutionality)
- Bowker v. State, 214 S.W.3d 243 (Ark. 2005) (vagueness/entrapped-innocent doctrine; challenger must show lack of fair warning)
- Gooch v. State, 463 S.W.3d 296 (Ark. 2015) (preservation rule: issues, including constitutional ones, must be presented to trial court to preserve appellate review)
- Miller v. State, 362 S.W.3d 264 (Ark. 2010) (standard of review for admission of expert testimony—abuse of discretion)
- Marts v. State, 968 S.W.2d 41 (Ark. 1998) (opinion testimony impermissible when it tells jury what result to reach)
- Porta v. State, 428 S.W.3d 585 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013) (error to admit incriminating statements from forensic mental-health exam in State’s case-in-chief)
- Mercouri v. State, 480 S.W.3d 864 (Ark. 2016) (appellate sufficiency review considers evidence in light most favorable to State; appellate court does not reweigh credibility)
- Kauffeld v. State, 528 S.W.3d 302 (Ark. Ct. App. 2017) (definition of substantial evidence standard)