Hartman v. State
2017 Ark. 7
| Ark. | 2017Background
- Samuel Hartman was convicted of rape (victim: his stepdaughter) after admitting to police he had touched the victim’s genital area; the rape conviction and life sentence were affirmed on direct appeal.
- After direct appeal, Hartman filed a Rule 37.1 postconviction petition alleging ineffective assistance of trial counsel and other errors; the Franklin County Circuit Court denied relief and denied a motion for reconsideration.
- Hartman’s Rule 37 claims included: (1) counsel made derogatory remarks about Hartman during guilt-phase closing argument; (2) counsel failed to object to allegedly hearsay testimony by the police chief; and (3) counsel failed to present evidence (chlamydia status) suggesting the victim did not have a sexually transmitted infection while Hartman did.
- Trial counsel explained the closing-argument remarks were a strategy to concede offensive-but-not-rape conduct and to distinguish admissions of contact from the element of penetration required for rape.
- The circuit court found counsel’s strategy reasonable, held Hartman failed to show which hearsay statements would have been inadmissible or prejudicial, and denied reconsideration of the chlamydia-evidence claim because Hartman failed to show the evidence was unavailable earlier or otherwise warrant an exception to Rule 37.2(d).
- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the denial of postconviction relief, applying Strickland to ineffective-assistance claims and finding no clear error in the circuit court’s factual and legal conclusions.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (Hartman) | Defendant's Argument (State) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether counsel’s derogatory closing remarks rendered assistance ineffective | Witt’s remarks demeaned Hartman and undermined defense, requiring relief | Remarks were strategic concessions to preserve credibility while distinguishing admitted conduct from rape (penetration) | Affirmed — remarks were reasonable trial strategy; not ineffective assistance |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to object to police testimony as hearsay | Trial counsel should have objected to multiple statements by the police chief as inadmissible hearsay | Hartman failed to identify which statements lacked an admissible hearsay exception or to show prejudice; counsel’s choice left room for cross-examination | Affirmed — Hartman failed to show an objection would have succeeded or prejudiced the outcome |
| Whether counsel was ineffective for failing to present evidence of chlamydia disparity | Evidence that defendant and wife had chlamydia but victim did not would have impeached prosecution’s theory and required remand | Trial counsel credibly testified he was unaware of this at trial; evidence relevance was doubtful and Hartman failed to show it was unavailable earlier | Affirmed — motion for reconsideration improper; no basis to remand; claim denied |
| Whether the circuit court erred in denying reconsideration based on later-discovered evidence | Postconviction counsel found trial notes after the hearing undermining Witt’s testimony, warranting reconsideration | Rule 37.2(d) forecloses rehearing except for narrow exceptions; Hartman offered no reason the evidence was unavailable earlier or wrongfully withheld | Affirmed — no new-exception shown; denial of reconsideration proper |
Key Cases Cited
- Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (ineffective-assistance-of-counsel standard: deficient performance and prejudice)