Jordan v. State
412 S.W.3d 150
Ark.2012Background
- Jordan was convicted of rape and sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment.
- Victim, a 75-year-old woman, identified Jordan as her attacker; he was a former neighbor who had begun visiting her.
- Jordan faced prior felonies including first-degree carnal abuse of a six-year-old, arson, terroristic threatening, and failure to register as a sex offender.
- Before trial, Jordan moved in limine to exclude prior felonies as impeachment evidence; the court reserved ruling and later allowed impeachment if he testified.
- Jordan testified, admitting four prior felonies; the jury returned a guilty verdict.
- Jordan challenged admission of prior offenses and alleged judicial bias under Rule 35.1, but the court’s rulings were upheld on appeal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rule 609 balancing admissibility of priors | Jordan: court failed proper Rule 609(a)(1) balancing; used a bright-line rule. | Jordan: court balanced probative value and prejudice; properly admitted priors. | Court properly balanced; admissible under Rule 609. |
| Whether the State could cross-examine about specifics of priors | Jordan: specifics were too prejudicial; overbroad cross-examination. | Jordan: central credibility issue; specifics probative. | Prior convictions and their nature admissible; credibility central. |
| Admission of the specific nature of prior offenses | Jordan: trial court allowed specific nature; argued improper under Rule 609/403. | State: specificity necessary for impeachment; proper. | Argument waived; not reviewed on appeal. |
| Rule 35.1: judicial bias evidenced by court comments | Jordan: court’s comments showed bias against him. | State: no preserved error; comments did not violate Rule 35.1. | Not preserved; review barred. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ellis v. State, 2012 Ark. 65 (Ark. 2012) (Rule 609 balancing depends on trial record; generally upheld when balancing occurs)
- Turner v. State, 325 Ark. 237, 926 S.W.2d 843 (Ark. 1996) (cross-examination of defendant's priors permissible when credibility central)
- Jones v. State, 274 Ark. 379, 625 S.W.2d 471 (Ark. 1981) (overruled where prior rape conviction deemed too prejudicial)
- Strong v. State, 372 Ark. 404, 277 S.W.3d 159 (Ark. 2008) (factors for Rule 609 probative value vs prejudice include credibility and centrality)
- Schalski v. State, 322 Ark. 63, 907 S.W.2d 693 (Ark. 1995) (reaffirms case-by-case approach to Rule 609 analysis)