Maciel v. State
501 S.W.3d 847
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Javier Maciel was charged with second-degree sexual assault of his stepdaughter Y.C., alleged to have occurred between Jan 1, 2012 and Nov 1, 2014.
- Y.C. testified that Maciel repeatedly entered her bedroom at night and touched her vaginal area, beginning summer 2011 and continuing twice monthly for several years.
- Y.C. also testified that during a January–February 2014 trip to Mexico, Maciel penetrated her with his finger on two occasions; she said no sexual contact occurred after that trip.
- Before trial, Maciel filed motions in limine seeking to exclude testimony about the Mexico incidents on multiple grounds (jurisdiction, similarity, identification, Rules 403/404(b), and Fifth/Sixth Amendment due-process concerns).
- The circuit court denied the motions; at trial the jury convicted Maciel of second-degree sexual assault and sentenced him to 15 years.
- On appeal, Maciel argued the Mexico acts were inadmissible under the pedophile exception because they occurred after the charged crime and because the pedophile exception violated equal protection; the Court of Appeals affirmed for lack of preservation.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Admissibility of Mexico acts under pedophile exception when acts occurred after charged crime | Mexico acts should be inadmissible because they postdate the charged offense | State sought admission under the pedophile exception to show propensity/identity | Not reached on merits — issue not preserved at trial; conviction affirmed |
| Equal-protection challenge to pedophile exception | Exception treats defendants differently and violates due process/equal protection | State applied established pedophile-exception doctrine | Not reached on merits — issue not preserved at trial; conviction affirmed |
| Other Rule-based challenges to admissibility (jurisdiction, similarity, identification, Rules 403/404(b)) | These grounds were raised to exclude the Mexico testimony | Court considered and denied motions; testimony admitted | Preserved and rejected at trial; admission stood (trial court denied motions) |
| Preservation requirement for appellate review | N/A (appellant contends constitutional issues) | Appellant failed to present the specific theories on preservation at trial | Appellate court declined to address unpreserved theories; cited preservation rule and affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Raymond v. State, 354 Ark. 157 (2003) (an issue must be raised and argued at trial to be preserved for appeal)