McCulley v. State
2014 Ark. App. 330
Ark. Ct. App.2014Background
- Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed McCulley's rape conviction and denied suppression and evidentiary challenges.
- McCulley moved to suppress evidence seized during a January 16, 2012 search warrant execution at his home.
- Affidavit and warrant related to A.R.’s alleged drugging and sexual acts, including video surveillance and digital evidence.
- Officers recovered 79 items, notably several adult videotapes, sex toys, and drug paraphernalia; some nude photos were later deemed prejudicial.
- The trial court held videotapes within the warrant’s scope but excluded nude photographs of an unidentified adult woman for prejudice.
- McCulley argued the warrant was overbroad and that the titles of adult videos were improperly admitted; the State argued preservation issues.
- On appeal, the court found several arguments for suppression were not preserved and the titles issue was not timely objected to.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the suppression challenge preserved on the warrant evidence? | McCulley argues warrant/affidavit defects should suppress all items. | State contends no preservation of those warrant challenges beyond the adult materials. | Not preserved; affirmed. |
| Are the titles of adult videos admissible or properly preserved as error? | Titles should be suppressed as prejudicial evidence under suppression motion. | Objection untimely; titles admissible as adult materials. | Objection untimely; affirmed on admissibility. |
Key Cases Cited
- Reed v. State, 383 S.W.3d 881 (Ark. App. 2011) (preservation and scope of appellate arguments)
- Hardman v. State, 144 S.W.3d 744 (Ark. 2004) (contemporaneous objection requirement for evidentiary error)