Nelson v. State, 2011 Ark. 429

Nelson was convicted by a Grant County jury on four counts of sexual assault of a minor involving a 14-year-old victim in 2008.
The State alleged Nelson was a temporary caretaker or a person in a position of trust or authority over the victim.
The circuit court denied Nelson’s directed-verdict motions challenging the trust/authority element.
Nelson challenged the Arkansas Rape Shield Statute as unconstitutional and challenged the admissibility of a custodial statement and a witness’s character evidence.
The Supreme Court affirmed the convictions, upholding the evidence sufficiency, the rape-shield statute, and the trial-court evidentiary ruling, while addressing several procedural/qualitative issues.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for temporary caretaker.	Nelson contends no substantial evidence shows a temporary caretaker/authority over C.F.	State argues testimony showed Nelson cared for C.F. and that his parents trusted him, creating a position of trust.	Substantial evidence supports temporary caretaker/authority finding.
Constitutionality of the rape shield statute.	Nelson asserts the statute is unconstitutional under separation of powers after Johnson.	State argues the statute preserves discretion and does not supplant court rules.	Rape shield statute upheld as constitutional; it preserves trial-court discretion.
Admissibility of Nelson's custodial statement.	Waiver of Miranda rights allegedly involuntary due to intoxication, making the statement improper.	No authority cited; argument is insufficient to affect admissibility; weight goes to credibility.	Argument not addressed for lack of authority/citation.
Exclusion of witness testimony on victim's truthfulness.	Ms. Harp should have been allowed to testify about C.F.'s truthfulness.	State objected; court curtailed the testimony; issue lacks a proper proffer.	Review foreclosed due to no proffer of excluded testimony.

Bowker v. State, 363 Ark. 345, 214 S.W.3d 243 (2005) (defined 'temporary caretaker' in context of trust/authority)
Murphy v. State, 83 Ark.App. 72, 117 S.W.3d 627 (2003) (assistive role implying trust/authority over victim)
Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415, 17 S.W.3d 61 (2000) (procedural limits on court’s rulemaking vs. statute)
M.M. v. State, 350 Ark. 328, 88 S.W.3d 406 (2002) (rape-shield discretion and admissibility framework)
Harris v. State, 322 Ark. 167, 907 S.W.2d 729 (1995) (rape-shield admissibility under discretionary hearing)
Rounsaville v. State, 372 Ark. 252, 273 S.W.3d 486 (2008) (great discretion in rape-shield rulings)
Talbert v. State, 367 Ark. 262, 239 S.W.3d 504 (2006) (standard for addressing unsupported argument)
Standridge v. State, 329 Ark. 473, 951 S.W.2d 299 (1997) (intoxication affects weight, not admissibility)
Phillips v. State, 321 Ark. 160, 900 S.W.2d 526 (1995) (capacity to challenge statements and credibility)
Midgett v. State, 316 Ark. 553, 873 S.W.2d 165 (1994) (intoxication and admissibility/weight distinction)
Johnson v. Rockwell Automation, Inc., 2009 Ark. 241 (2009) (limits on procedural rules and separation of powers post-Amendment 80)
Graydon v. State, 329 Ark. 596, 953 S.W.2d 45 (1997) (purpose of rape shield statute to shield victims from humiliation)