Carter v. State, 568 S.W.3d 788

Eric Jamar Carter was convicted by a Hot Spring County jury of raping T.S., a 31‑year‑old woman with intellectual disability/autism traits, and sentenced as a habitual offender to 480 months' imprisonment.
Incident: April 20, 2016 — Carter allegedly refused to leave T.S.'s home, pinned her, bit her breast, dug fingernails into her arm, and penetrated her vagina (fingers and penis); T.S. later disclosed the assault and identified Carter in a photo lineup.
The State sought to admit testimony under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) about two prior alleged rapes (2014 incidents involving H.W. and C.R.) that shared similar circumstances (forced contact, digital and penile penetration, victim identification of Carter).
Trial court admitted the 404(b) evidence after a pretrial hearing and instructed the jury that the evidence could be considered only for purposes like intent, motive, opportunity, preparation, or plan — not to prove character.
Defense moved for directed verdict (challenging sufficiency) and for mistrial after an alleged offhand prosecutor comment during a break; both motions were denied. Court of appeals affirmed conviction but remanded to correct a clerical error in the sentencing order (habitual-offender box unchecked).

Issue	State's Argument	Carter's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence (directed verdict)	T.S.’s testimony and corroborating evidence (bite mark photos, neighbor sightings, ID) suffice to support a rape conviction	T.S.’s testimony unreliable and insufficient to sustain conviction	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports conviction; credibility for jury to resolve
Admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence	Prior assaults were independently relevant and similar enough to show intent, motive, opportunity, preparation, or plan; probative value not substantially outweighed by prejudice	Prior acts irrelevant, unduly remote, and more prejudicial than probative; used to show bad character	Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion admitting 404(b) evidence
Motion for mistrial after prosecutor spoke to jurors during break	Comment (getting candy for blood sugar) was harmless, not about the case, and caused no prejudice	Comment violated instruction prohibiting juror contact and warranted mistrial	Affirmed — no manifest prejudice shown; mistrial not required
Sentencing clerical error	Sentenced and convicted as habitual offender; sentencing order should reflect that	Not contested; appellant acknowledges habitual‑offender status	Remanded — correct clerical error so judgment reflects habitual‑offender sentence

Hinton v. State, 2015 Ark. 479, 477 S.W.3d 517 (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Wyles v. State, 368 Ark. 646, 249 S.W.3d 782 (definition of substantial evidence review)
Boyd v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 407, 500 S.W.3d 772 (standards for sufficiency and review)
Breeden v. State, 2013 Ark. 145, 427 S.W.3d 5 (victim's uncorroborated testimony can support rape conviction)
Solomon v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 559, 379 S.W.3d 489 (trial‑court discretion in admitting testimony)
Vance v. State, 2011 Ark. 243, 383 S.W.3d 325 (404(b) independent relevance test)
Fells v. State, 362 Ark. 77, 207 S.W.3d 498 (degree of similarity required for 404(b) less than modus operandi)
Creed v. State, 372 Ark. 221, 273 S.W.3d 494 (deference to trial court on similarity under 404(b))
Sasser v. State, 321 Ark. 438, 902 S.W.2d 773 (prior acts admissibility principles)
Harris v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 219, 547 S.W.3d 709 (abuse‑of‑discretion standard)
Rounsaville v. State, 2009 Ark. 479, 346 S.W.3d 289 (prejudicial nature of prosecution evidence does not alone require exclusion)
Green v. State, 2013 Ark. 497, 430 S.W.3d 729 (mistrial as drastic remedy; trial court discretion)
Jefferson v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 536, 532 S.W.3d 593 (trial court may correct clerical errors in judgment)