Evans v. State, 464 S.W.3d 916

Defendant Desmond Evans was convicted by a jury in Union County of capital murder for the death of 21‑month‑old Cheris Samuels, sentenced to life without parole.
Evidence: child died from multiple blunt‑force strikes to the head causing intracranial bleeding; medical examiner testified to this cause of death.
While incarcerated pretrial, Evans wrote an unsigned letter seized by jail staff that solicited someone to claim the death was an accident; Evans admitted authorship at trial.
At a pretrial hearing Evans objected to the letter and requested either suppression or a continuance; the court granted a continuance, and Evans agreed to the new trial date.
Evans appealed, raising three grounds: (1) trial court refused to instruct the jury on lesser included offenses (first‑ and second‑degree murder); (2) admission of autopsy photographs of the brain was prejudicial; and (3) admission of the jail letter should have been suppressed as untimely disclosed.

Issue	Evans' Argument	State's Argument	Held
Failure to give instructions on lesser‑included offenses	Court abused discretion by treating his defense as absolute innocence and refusing first/second‑degree murder instructions	Evans failed to preserve the issue by not proffering instructions and agreed his defense was absolute innocence	Not preserved for appeal; proffer required, so claim fails
Admission of autopsy brain photographs	Photographs were overly prejudicial and cumulative; examiner could have described injuries	Photos were probative to show cause of death and aided jurors and the medical examiner’s testimony	No abuse of discretion; photos admissible to explain cause, corroborate testimony, and show injury location/type
Admission of jail letter (timing of disclosure)	Letter was not timely disclosed; should be suppressed	Evans accepted a continuance instead of suppression and thereby waived challenge	Waived; Evans acquiesced to continuance and cannot attack ruling on appeal

Fincham v. State, 2013 Ark. 204, 427 S.W.3d 643 (preservation requires proffer of proposed jury instruction)
Stewart v. State, 316 Ark. 153, 870 S.W.2d 752 (same: proffer required to preserve instruction issue)
Airsman v. State, 2014 Ark. 500, 451 S.W.3d 565 (admission of photos reviewed for abuse of discretion)
Lard v. State, 2014 Ark. 1, 431 S.W.3d 249 (gruesome or cumulative photos not automatically excluded)
Anderson v. State, 2011 Ark. 461, 385 S.W.3d 214 (photographs admissible to explain testimony, show condition/location of injuries, and aid juror understanding)
Williams v. State, 374 Ark. 282, 287 S.W.3d 559 (party who agrees to trial court ruling cannot attack it on appeal)

Affirmed.