McPherson v. State
2017 Ark. App. 515
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- James Lee McPherson was convicted by a Faulkner County jury of three counts of rape of a victim under 14 and sentenced to 25 years on each count, to run consecutively (900 months total).
- Victim M.R., born 11/15/2000, testified that McPherson had sexual intercourse with her three times between August and September/October 2014 when she was 13, following communications via Kik and Snapchat.
- M.R. reported threats by McPherson that he would blame her parents if she did not comply; Snapchat messages were recovered from her phone and admitted at trial.
- Jail-recorded telephone calls made by McPherson while awaiting trial—admitted over objection—contained admissions that he had sex with M.R. three times; family members authenticated voices.
- McPherson moved for directed verdicts, suppression of recorded calls, and exclusion of evidence as unduly prejudicial; all motions were denied. His attorney filed a Rule 4-3(k)/Anders no-merit brief and moved to withdraw; the court of appeals granted withdrawal and affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | State: M.R.’s testimony of penetration and corroborating electronic messages and jail admissions support conviction | McPherson: Insufficient evidence; alleged inconsistencies and lack of corroboration | Affirmed — testimony of child describing penetration and jail admissions constitute substantial evidence |
| Admissibility of jail telephone recordings | State: Calls were monitored; no expectation of privacy; statements admissible | McPherson: Calls protected by spousal privilege and should be suppressed under Rules 504 and 801(d)(2) | Affirmed — no reasonable expectation of privacy where jail warned calls were monitored; recordings admissible |
| Exclusion of evidence as unduly prejudicial (Rule 403) | State: Circumstances of offense and victim’s conduct are relevant and probative | McPherson: Evidence of alleged undue influence/coercion should be excluded as unfairly prejudicial | Affirmed — probative value of circumstances outweighed prejudice objection; evidence admissible |
| Foundation/authentication of Snapchat messages, CD, and call list | State: Identified and authenticated via testimony (victim, detective, jail admin, mother) | McPherson: Proper foundation not laid for electronic communications and CD/list | Affirmed — court found sufficient authentication and no abuse of discretion |
Key Cases Cited
- Hinton v. State, 2015 Ark. 479, 477 S.W.3d 517 (standard for directed verdict and credibility for jury)
- Wyles v. State, 368 Ark. 646, 249 S.W.3d 782 (definition of substantial evidence review)
- Boyd v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 407, 500 S.W.3d 772 (sufficiency standards for appeals)
- Breeden v. State, 2013 Ark. 145, 427 S.W.3d 5 (victim’s uncorroborated testimony can sustain rape conviction)
- Decay v. State, 2009 Ark. 566, 352 S.W.3d 319 (no reasonable expectation of privacy for recorded jail calls)
- Gaines v. State, 340 Ark. 99, 8 S.W.3d 547 (relevance of circumstances of offense and Rule 403 analysis)
- Kemp v. State, 324 Ark. 178, 919 S.W.2d 943 (challenge for cause preserved only for seated jurors)
- Donley v. Donley, 2016 Ark. 243, 493 S.W.3d 762 (authentication of social-media screenshots via witness testimony)