Lewis v. State
2017 Ark. App. 442
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- On April 29, 2014, Keenan Lewis shot and killed Jason Harris; Harris was struck nine times and two wounds were independently fatal. Lewis was convicted of first-degree murder and received a consecutive firearm sentence.
- Eyewitnesses (Harris’s girlfriend Jessica White and neighbor Levell Crump) placed Lewis at the scene, with testimony that Harris was not armed and appeared defensive when shot; Lewis admitted he shot Harris nine times but claimed self-defense.
- Bree Hood (Lewis’s girlfriend) testified for the State and later for the defense about prior interactions with Harris and that she avoided calling police because “snitches get stitches.” On redirect the State questioned her about prior incidents involving Lewis to impeach her testimony about not calling police.
- Lewis alleged he reasonably believed Harris was about to use deadly force based on prior threats and gang-related hostility; he also sought to testify about Harris’s gang affiliation, which the court limited.
- On appeal Lewis challenged (1) admission of prior-conduct questioning of Hood under Rules 404(b)/608(b), (2) exclusion of testimony about Harris’s gang affiliation, and (3) sufficiency of the evidence on self-defense; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | State's Argument | Lewis's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency—self-defense preserved? | The State relied on eyewitnesses and Lewis’s own admissions to defeat self-defense; preservation required specific directed-verdict grounding. | Lewis argued he proved justification/self-defense so evidence was insufficient to convict. | Not preserved: directed-verdict motions did not specifically identify self-defense deficiencies; appeal waived and conviction stands. |
| Admission of prior-conduct evidence (Rule 404(b)) | The questions were impeachment, not propensity evidence, so 404(b) was not implicated. | The questions opened the door to impermissible other-acts evidence and unfair prejudice. | No abuse of discretion: court found 404(b) not implicated because evidence impeached Hood’s testimony about not calling police. |
| Impeachment by prior specific instances (Rule 608(b)) | The State argued Hood’s testimony opened credibility inquiry; limited questioning of Hood about calls was permissible on redirect. | Lewis argued 608(b) forbids extrinsic proof and that such inquiry was improper on redirect and prejudicial. | No abuse of discretion: defense opened the door; questioning about specific prior calls addressed truthfulness and was allowed (and any error harmless given overwhelming evidence). |
| Exclusion of testimony about victim’s gang affiliation | The State opposed further gang-detail testimony as cumulative/prejudicial; court limited further specifics. | Lewis argued victim’s gang affiliation was pertinent character evidence to support self-defense and his state of mind. | No abuse of discretion: court had already allowed evidence of gang-related threats and sounds; additional testimony would be cumulative and potentially prejudicial. |
Key Cases Cited
- LeFever v. State, 91 Ark. App. 86, 208 S.W.3d 812 (Ark. App. 2005) (sufficiency challenges must be addressed before other alleged trial errors to preserve double-jeopardy rights)
- Kinsey v. State, 503 S.W.3d 772 (Ark. 2016) (directed-verdict motions must specify self-defense deficiencies to preserve sufficiency claims)
- Scott v. State, 325 Ark. 267, 924 S.W.2d 248 (Ark. 1996) (gang affiliation evidence admissible for motive but must be balanced under Rule 403)
- Reynolds v. State, 492 S.W.3d 491 (Ark. 2016) (evidence of gang affiliation that is merely cumulative does not prejudice defendant)
- Gillean v. State, 478 S.W.3d 255 (Ark. App. 2015) (appellate review of evidentiary rulings is for abuse of discretion; harmless-error analysis where guilt is overwhelming)
- Henderson v. State, 980 S.W.2d 266 (Ark. 1998) (defendant may present pertinent character evidence of victim; trial court must balance probative value against prejudice)