Donald Caple v. State of Arkansas, 609 S.W.3d 630

Background

Donald Caple was charged with rape and second-degree sexual assault of his granddaughter L.H., alleging abuse beginning when she was four (2010) through age eleven.
L.H. testified in detail that Caple showed her pornography while naked, touched her genitals with his hands and mouth, had her perform oral sex, and partially inserted his penis into her vagina using Vaseline; she reported ejaculation into a towel.
Caple gave a recorded statement admitting repeated touching, masturbation in front of L.H., and digital/oral contact but denying penile penetration of the mouth or vagina; he testified similarly at trial.
A pediatrician examined L.H. and found no physical findings, explaining such absence is common in child-sex-abuse cases.
A Pulaski County jury convicted Caple of rape and second-degree sexual assault; he received life plus 20 years and a $15,000 fine.
On appeal Caple raised three issues: (1) sufficiency of evidence for the rape conviction; (2) denial of an attempted-rape jury instruction; and (3) admission at sentencing of victim-impact testimony including statistical claims by the victim’s mother.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for rape (penetration/deviate sexual activity)	State: L.H.’s detailed testimony alone provides substantial evidence of penile and oral penetration and deviate sexual activity.	Caple: Testimony and his own denials show no penile penetration; evidence insufficient to prove rape or deviate sexual activity.	Affirmed: Viewed in State’s favor, L.H.’s detailed account and Caple’s admissions about oral/manual contact supplied substantial evidence of penetration/deviate activity.
Requested attempted-rape jury instruction	State: Not entitled because evidence supports either full conviction or acquittal; defense presented all-or-nothing denial of penetration.	Caple: L.H.’s testimony that penetration occurred “a little bit” created a rational basis for attempted-rape instruction.	Affirmed: Court did not abuse discretion; defendant’s theory was complete denial of penetration, and evidence did not provide the slight evidence/rational basis required for attempt instruction.
Admission at sentencing of mother’s statistical testimony	State: Victim-impact evidence is admissible at sentencing; mother’s remarks relevant to impact.	Caple: Mother testified to statewide child-abuse statistics without qualification as an expert; testimony was prejudicial and beyond lay victim-impact testimony.	Affirmed: Court found testimony relevant to sentencing and not preserved as an expert-qualification objection; admission not reversible error (but one justice dissented on relevance/prejudice).

Key Cases Cited

Whitt v. State, 365 Ark. 580, 232 S.W.3d 459 (holding directed-verdict challenges are sufficiency-of-the-evidence reviews)
Gillard v. State, 366 Ark. 217, 234 S.W.3d 310 (review standards: view evidence in light most favorable to State)
Ricks v. State, 316 Ark. 601, 873 S.W.2d 808 (credibility for jury; circumstantial-evidence standards)
White v. State, 367 Ark. 595, 242 S.W.3d 240 (victim’s full and detailed accounting can support rape conviction)
Ward v. State, 370 Ark. 398, 260 S.W.3d 292 (uncorroborated victim testimony is sufficient; inconsistencies are for the jury)
Rounsaville v. State, 374 Ark. 356, 288 S.W.3d 213 (state need not prove sexual gratification directly if it is a plausible inference)
State v. Coble, 2016 Ark. 114, 487 S.W.3d 370 (application of rape/deviate-sexual-activity definitions)
Morris v. State, 351 Ark. 426, 94 S.W.3d 913 (standard for when an instruction must be given: slight evidence/rational basis)
Flowers v. State, 362 Ark. 193, 208 S.W.3d 113 (party must point to record evidence supporting requested instruction)
Barnes v. Everett, 351 Ark. 479, 95 S.W.3d 740 (instruction entitlement: correct law plus some evidentiary basis)
Kitchell v. State, 2020 Ark. 102, 594 S.W.3d 848 (limits on victim-impact evidence and relevance)
Miller v. State, 2010 Ark. 1, 362 S.W.3d 264 (reversible error where improper victim-impact evidence was admitted)
Walls v. State, 336 Ark. 490, 986 S.W.2d 397 (reversal where unrelated-crime evidence introduced as victim-impact)
Buckley v. State, 341 Ark. 864, 20 S.W.3d 331 (rules of evidence apply at sentencing though §16-97-103 expands admissible material)