K.B. v. State
2017 Ark. App. 478
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Juvenile K.B. was adjudicated delinquent for rape under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103 after a joint proceeding with co-defendant C.J.M.; the circuit court found K.B. restrained the victim while C.J.M. digitally penetrated her.
- The victim testified in detail about the February 24, 2016 incident; no scientific evidence of rape (e.g., physical trauma) was required for adjudication and none was found by the forensic examiner.
- K.B. moved to dismiss for insufficient evidence of forcible compulsion, moved to suppress a spontaneous statement made at arrest, and sought a new trial on several bases (destroyed/suppressed texts, failures in discovery, gag order preventing investigation, and newly discovered evidence).
- The forensic-rape-exam report was admitted into evidence as Defendant’s Exhibit 2 and the sexual-assault nurse examiner testified that no physical trauma was found; defense extensively cross-examined her about that report.
- The circuit court denied K.B.’s motions; on appeal the Arkansas Court of Appeals reviewed sufficiency of the evidence, discovery/prejudice assertions, suppression of statements, and newly discovered-evidence claims and affirmed the adjudication.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence (forcible compulsion) | State: Victim’s testimony describing restraint and digital penetration is sufficient to prove forcible compulsion and deviate sexual activity. | K.B.: Evidence was insufficient to show he committed rape or aided it (lack of penetration by K.B., alleged inconsistencies). | Affirmed: Victim’s uncorroborated testimony was substantial evidence; accomplice liability applied to K.B. for restraining the victim. |
| Alleged destruction/suppression of evidence / Brady | State: No prejudicial suppression; continuing discovery remedies existed and the forensic report was produced and admitted. | K.B.: Text messages were destroyed/suppressed and a rape-exam report was not provided to both defense attorneys, warranting new trial. | Denied: Defense did not pursue continuance to obtain texts; forensic report was admitted and tested at trial; no prejudice shown. |
| Suppression of spontaneous statement | State: Statement was voluntary, made to police officers (not an intake officer), and not protected by juvenile-intake statute. | K.B.: Statement was made during intake and protected by Ark. Code Ann. § 9-27-321 and Miranda; should have been suppressed. | Denied: Statement was made voluntarily to arresting officers (not intake officers), no suppression required. |
| New trial — newly discovered evidence / gag order | K.B.: Gag order prevented investigation and new evidence would impeach the victim (prior allegations), warranting a new trial. | State: No showing of due diligence; new evidence would only impeach witness credibility, which is insufficient for new trial. | Denied: No due diligence shown and impeachment evidence alone does not justify a new trial. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lamb v. State, 372 Ark. 277 (unacorroborated rape victim testimony can satisfy sufficiency)
- Bishop v. State, 310 Ark. 479 (victim testimony as proof of rape elements)
- Freeman v. State, 331 Ark. 130 (definition/analysis of physical force for forcible compulsion)
- Manatt v. State, 311 Ark. 17 (juvenile intake-statement statute does not bar statements to troopers/police)
- Misskelley v. State, 323 Ark. 449 (standard for newly discovered evidence in motion for new trial)
- Wilcox v. State, 342 Ark. 388 (due-diligence and impact requirements for newly discovered evidence)