Holland v. State
2015 Ark. 341
| Ark. | 2015Background
- Andrew M. Holland was convicted by a Pulaski County jury of first-degree sexual assault (victim XB) and second-degree sexual assault (victim JD) and sentenced to concurrent 40- and 30-year terms. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed; the Supreme Court granted review.
- The charges arose from allegations by two adolescent boys (XB and JD) that Holland, a long‑time family acquaintance and youth music manager, fondled them, showed pornography, used lotions, and made sexual comments; each disclosed years later to caregivers or intake staff.
- The State introduced testimony from three additional men (MJ, JG, JP) describing similar sexual misconduct by Holland in the late 1980s–1999, and a 1989 California probation order for related convictions.
- Holland moved to exclude that prior‑acts evidence under Rule 404(b) and Rule 403, to admit evidence of the victims’ alleged motives under the rape‑shield statute, and to obtain production of JD’s Rivendell psychotherapy/intake records; the court admitted the prior‑acts evidence, excluded the proffered rape‑shield evidence, and conducted in‑camera review of but denied production of JD’s records.
- On appeal Holland argued: (1) improper admission of prior‑acts evidence under the "pedophile exception" to Rule 404(b); (2) erroneous exclusion of evidence about victims’ motives to fabricate under the rape‑shield statute; and (3) violation of confrontation/due‑process by denying access to JD’s treatment records (psychotherapist/patient privilege).
Issues
| Issue | Holland's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of prior‑acts evidence (pedophile exception to Ark. R. Evid. 404(b)) | Evidence of MJ, JG, JP and prior convictions was unfairly prejudicial, remote, or unreliable and should be excluded | Prior acts are admissible under the pedophile exception to show intent, plan, proclivity, familiarity, and corroboration; similarities and relationships make them relevant | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion; acts sufficiently similar, intimate relationships established, remoteness reasonable, and credibility issues for jury to weigh |
| Admission of victims’ sexual‑conduct/motive evidence (rape‑shield statute) | XB’s penile abscess and JD’s sexual activity evidence were relevant to motive to fabricate and should have been admitted | Rape‑shield statute bars specific‑instance sexual‑conduct evidence unless court finds relevance outweighs prejudice; proffered evidence had low probative value and high prejudicial effect | Affirmed — court did not abuse discretion in excluding this evidence as more prejudicial than probative |
| Access to JD’s Rivendell records (psychotherapist/patient privilege vs. confrontation/due process) | Privilege must yield to Holland’s confrontation/due‑process rights; records could contain exculpatory prior inconsistent statements and were material | Privilege protects records; court performed in‑camera review and found no exculpatory material warranting disclosure; Johnson v. State and Jaffee support privilege | Affirmed — in‑camera review disclosed no material exculpatory information; disclosure not required and no reversible constitutional violation found |
Key Cases Cited
- Free v. State, 293 Ark. 65 (1987) (pedophile‑exception rationale: prior similar acts may corroborate victim and show depraved sexual disposition)
- Nelson v. State, 365 Ark. 314 (2006) (remoteness assessed by reasonableness standard; prior acts not automatically too remote)
- Lamb v. State, 372 Ark. 277 (2008) (application of pedophile exception to long‑ago acts when sufficiently similar)
- Jaffee v. Redmond, 518 U.S. 1 (1996) (recognition of psychotherapist‑patient privilege)
- Pennsylvania v. Ritchie, 480 U.S. 39 (1987) (due‑process/Brady analysis for inspection of sensitive investigatory files; in‑camera review procedure)
- Johnson v. State, 326 Ark. 430 (1996) (Arkansas precedent upholding psychotherapist/patient privilege in criminal proceedings)