David Ray Parret v. State of Arkansas
2022 Ark. App. 234
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2022Background
- David Ray Parret was tried and convicted by a Washington County jury of second-degree sexual assault based on allegations by his minor daughter (CP); he was sentenced to 10 years.
- The State originally charged a second count based on allegations by an older daughter (BW) from a 2011 matter but later dropped that count and sought to call BW as a Rule 404(b) witness (pedophile-exception evidence) to show pattern/absence of mistake.
- Defense learned that investigatory materials from the 2011 probe were missing; a disc with Parret’s 2011 recorded interview was produced just before trial and a 2011 Arkansas State Police report was produced mid-trial, hours before BW’s testimony.
- Defense moved pretrial to exclude BW’s testimony under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) partly on grounds of late/missing discovery; the court denied the motion but allowed defense time to review newly produced materials.
- Defense did not renew a motion to exclude or seek a continuance or mistrial when the 2011 report appeared mid-trial; defense used the 2011 statement to impeach BW during trial.
- Defense also objected pretrial to jurors wearing face masks (claiming Sixth and Fourteenth Amendment impediment to observing juror demeanor); the court permitted jurors to choose to wear masks. On appeal, Parret challenged denial of the 404(b) exclusion and the mask issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing to exclude BW’s testimony as Rule 404(b) evidence after late disclosure of 2011 materials | State: BW admissible under pedophile exception; materials were not a surprise and were produced when located; sanction not warranted | Parret: Mid-trial disclosure of the 2011 report and prior recordings deprived defense of opportunity to prepare and warranted exclusion | Court: No abuse of discretion. Even if discovery lapse occurred, Parret failed to show prejudice; court properly exercised discretion and defense timely reviewed and used the material to impeach BW |
| Whether allowing jurors to wear face masks violated Parret’s constitutional right to observe juror demeanor | State: Argument not preserved; court followed prevailing supreme-court COVID guidance | Parret: Masks prevented adequate observation of jurors’ faces and reactions, impairing confrontation and fair trial rights | Court: Not preserved for appeal. Alternatively, Cooper v. State controls and would support affirmance (masking decisions upheld) |
Key Cases Cited
- Hicks v. State, 340 Ark. 605 (abuse-of-discretion standard for discovery-sanction rulings)
- Barrow v. State, 377 S.W.3d 481 (trial court discretion in selecting remedy for discovery violations)
- Bray v. State, 322 Ark. 178 (prejudice to defendant is key in reversible discovery violation)
- Lee v. State, 340 Ark. 504 (defendant must show reasonable probability result would differ to prove prejudice)
- Cooper v. State, 638 S.W.3d 872 (upholding trial-court COVID-era mask rulings for jurors)