Mathis v. State
2012 Ark. App. 285
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- Appellant Robert D. Mathis was convicted in Lonoke County Circuit Court on June 30, 2011 of aggravated assault, terroristic threatening, and committing the offenses in the presence of a child.
- The State admitted the victim’s 911 recording as an excited utterance over Mathis’s objection, contending it asserted substantive, not just credibility-related, statements.
- The victim, Amanda Mathis, testified that an argument in January 2011 became physical with their six-month-old child present; she claimed bruising and that Mathis attempted to leave, while she tried to restrain him.
- Dispatcher Helena Davis testified she received the 911 call; Mrs. Mathis was distraught and asked officers to find Mathis who had left with the child.
- The trial court denied Mathis’s directed-verdict motion, and the court subsequently found him guilty and sentenced him to an aggregate term of eleven years.
- On appeal, Mathis challenges (a) the admission of the 911 recording as substantive evidence under the excited utterance exception and (b) the sufficiency of the evidence, among related preservation and evidentiary arguments.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the 911 recording was properly admitted as an excited utterance | Mathis contends the 911 recording is improper substantive evidence or hearsay | State argues the recording qualifies as an excited utterance and was properly admitted | Admissible as excited utterance; no abuse of discretion |
| Whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction without the 911 recording | Without the 911 statements, there was insufficient evidence | Other corroborating evidence supported guilt | Sufficient, viewing evidence in State’s light with corroboration from discovery of bruising and flight to a neighbor’s house |
| Whether the challenge to the 911 recording was preserved under Wicks exceptions | Error should be reviewed under Wicks exceptions for unpreserved issues | Wicks exceptions not applicable here; preserved objections required | Not preserved for review under Wicks exceptions; argument rejected |
| Whether Mrs. Mathis was given opportunity to explain or deny the prior inconsistent statements | Rule 613 requires opportunity to explain/deny prior inconsistent statements | Mrs. Mathis was questioned about the statements during trial | No error; relevant testimony during trial satisfied Rule 613 requirements |
Key Cases Cited
- Pace v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 491 (Ark. App. 2010) (standard for admission of evidence and abuse-of-discretion review)
- Beare v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 544 (Ark. App. 2010) (substantial evidence standard; credibility determinations left to fact-finder)
- Lewis v. State, 41 Ark.App. 89, 848 S.W.2d 955 (Ark. App. 1993) (prior statements may affect credibility; limitations on substantive use)
- Adams v. State, 2009 Ark. 375, 326 S.W.3d 764 (Ark. 2009) (Wicks exception preservation not satisfied without contemporaneous objection)
- Crawford v. State, 362 Ark. 301, 208 S.W.3d 146 (Ark. 2005) (limits of applying Rule 103(d) exceptions; preservation requirement)
- Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53, 76 S.W.3d 825 (Ark. 2002) (Rule 103(d) is negative; not an affirmative duty to raise errors)
- Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781, 606 S.W.2d 366 (Ark. 1980) (four exceptions to contemporaneous objection rule)