Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222

Chunestudy was convicted of rape of his minor daughter in Green County, Arkansas, and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Charges covered March 1, 2003 to April 27, 2005; trial began August 10, 2011.
The State presented the victim’s testimony describing an ongoing sexual relationship spanning Oklahoma and Arkansas, with the victim aged 15–18 in Greene County.
The State admitted prior and subsequent acts under Rule 404(b), including marriage, incest arrest, and sex with the victim after she turned eighteen.
Chunestudy challenged several evidentiary and procedural issues (directed verdict, right to remain silent, expert/lay witness testimony, discovery), all addressed by the court with rulings favorable to the State.
The court affirmed the conviction and rejected all of Chunestudy’s appellate arguments.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admission of 404(b) acts (pedophile exception)	Chunestudy argues acts outside Greene County were inadmissible character evidence.	Chunestudy contends the acts are prejudicial and not probative under 404(b)/403.	Court affirmed admission; pedophile exception applied and evidence probative.
Preservation of sufficiency challenge to directed verdict	Chunestudy preserved challenge to sufficiency of evidence.	State views issue as not preserved due to failure to renew motion at close of all evidence.	Waived; Rule 33.1 renewal requirement strictly applied; issue not preserved.
Right to remain silent and prosecutorial remarks; Wicks exceptions	Chunestudy asserts trial court and prosecutor violated his Fifth Amendment rights; seeks remedy under Wicks exceptions.	State argues Wicks exceptions do not apply and objections were not preserved.	Wicks third exception not applicable; issue not properly preserved for review.
Admission and notice of Vanaman testimony; Rule 17.1 discovery; relevance	Chunestudy contends inadequate notice and nondisclosure; Vanaman not qualified and testimony prejudicial.	State argues no prejudice from short notice; testimony relevant and discovery is discretionary.	No reversible error; discovery violation, if any, was harmless; testimony found relevant and admissible.

Lacy v. State, 377 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. 2010) (directed-verdict sufficiency review tied to double-jeopardy concerns)
Hathcock v. State, 182 S.W.3d 152 (Ark. 2004) (pedophile exception for Rule 404(b) in child-sex cases)
Kelley v. State, 327 S.W.3d 373 (Ark. 2009) (pedophile exception; similar acts with intimate relationship support probative value)
Wicks v. State, 606 S.W.2d 866 (Ark. 1980) (set forth narrow and rare exceptions to trial-court intervention for prosecutorial errors)
Ayala v. State, 226 S.W.3d 766 (Ark. 2006) (rare application of third Wicks exception in specific contexts)