Matar v. State
2016 Ark. App. 243
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Ali Martin Matar, Jr., an after-school program worker, was accused by a 5‑year‑old victim of inappropriate touching in a school computer lab.
- Victim interviewed at the Children’s Advocacy Center (CAC); police investigator Dahrron Moss contacted Matar by phone and asked him to come to the police station.
- At the station, Matar initially admitted that his fingertips “grazed” inside the victim’s vagina while removing her hand from her underwear; after a break, Moss read Miranda warnings and Matar signed a waiver and made further inculpatory statements.
- Matar was charged with rape (and other counts on which he was acquitted) and convicted by a jury; sentenced to 35 years’ imprisonment.
- On appeal Matar raised (1) sufficiency/directed‑verdict challenge, (2) challenge to denial of motion to suppress his statements (Miranda/custody), and (3) challenge to denial of a continuance based on late discovery.
- The court affirmed: (1) sufficiency issue not preserved (and would fail on the merits); (2) no custodial interrogation prior to Miranda so suppression denial upheld; (3) no abuse of discretion in denying continuance; no prejudice shown.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Matar) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / directed verdict | Evidence (victim’s testimony and confession) sufficiently proved deviate sexual activity | Evidence insufficient; contact was a misunderstanding; confession unreliable | Not preserved for appeal; merit would fail — victim’s uncorroborated testimony is sufficient |
| Motion to suppress (Miranda/custody) | Interview was noncustodial; warnings given before the formal waivered admissions; statements admissible | Interrogation turned custodial before warnings; earlier admissions should be suppressed | Trial court not clearly against preponderance: defendant was not "in custody" before warnings; suppression denial affirmed |
| Motion for continuance (late discovery) — CAC interview | State promptly produced DVD when received; substance previously known from probable‑cause affidavit and reports | Late production prevented adequate preparation; prejudiced defense | No abuse of discretion; defendant had prior knowledge and no showing of prejudice |
| Motion for continuance (jail calls) | Calls were provided timely; defendant knew calls were recorded | Insufficient time to review recordings before trial | Denial not an abuse of discretion; no prejudice shown |
Key Cases Cited
- Weber v. State, 326 Ark. 564 (Ark.) (a child victim’s uncorroborated testimony may support rape conviction)
- Cobb v. State, 340 Ark. 240 (Ark.) (directed‑verdict tests sufficiency of the evidence)
- Johnson v. State, 337 Ark. 196 (Ark.) (substantial‑evidence standard explained)
- LeFever v. State, 91 Ark. App. 86 (Ark. Ct. App.) (appellate view is limited to evidence supporting verdict)
- Solomon v. State, 323 Ark. 178 (Ark.) (definition of custody for Miranda purposes)
- Oregon v. Mathiason, 429 U.S. 492 (U.S.) (voluntary station‑house interview not inherently custodial)
- Flanagan v. State, 368 Ark. 143 (Ark.) (police‑station interview without restraint not custodial)