Paschal v. State, 2012 Ark. 127

Paschal was convicted of four counts of second-degree sexual assault and one count of witness bribery; he received three consecutive ten-year terms, a ten-year suspended sentence on one count, and a $4,000 fine on the bribery conviction.
On appeal, Paschal challenged the denial of a directed verdict on witness bribery, admission of bias evidence against the State’s key witness, severance of the witness-bribery count, the constitutionality of 5-14-125(a)(6) as applied, admissibility of certain penalty-phase testimony, and proposed jury instructions.
The court treated the directed-verdict challenge as a sufficiency-of-the-evidence issue for witness bribery and concluded substantial evidence supported the conviction.
The court held the circuit court abused its discretion by excluding bias evidence about S.C., Paschal’s bias-on-witness testimony challenge.
The court reversed and dismissed Paschal’s second-degree sexual assault convictions as applied to 5-14-125(a)(6) and did not address the remaining issues beyond that disposition.
The judgment was affirmed in part, reversed and remanded in part, and reversed and dismissed in part.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for witness bribery	Paschal argues the evidence failed to prove bribery.	State contends the evidence showed Paschal offered money to influence a witness.	Substantial evidence supported the conviction.
Admission of bias evidence against S.C.	Paschal contends S.C.’s bias was relevant and admissible.	State argues evidence was not relevant or probative.	Abuse of discretion; bias evidence should have been admitted.
Constitutionality of 5-14-125(a)(6) as applied	Paschal argues the statute infringes a fundamental privacy right for adults in consensual relations.	State contends no fundamental right to private consensual sex between teacher and student exists in this context.	Unconstitutional as applied; reverse and dismiss second-degree sexual assault convictions.
Penalty-phase evidence and jury instructions (non-fundamental to disposition)			Not addressed on the merits due to disposition of other issues.

Smoak v. State, 2011 Ark. 529 (Ark. 2011) (sufficiency review; directed verdict treated as sufficiency challenge)
Clay v. State, 236 Ark. 398 (Ark. 1963) (state prosecutions; authority of the State vs. victim)
Talbert v. State, 367 Ark. 262 (Ark. 2006) (constitutional challenge to statute involving private consensual sex context)
Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600 (Ark. 2002) (privacy right; consensual adult sexual activity)
Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558 (U.S. 2003) (fundamental right to privacy in private consensual sex (federal)”)
Williams v. State, 347 Ark. 728 (Ark. 2002) (strict construction of criminal statutes; doubts resolved in favor of the accused)
Picado, 349 Ark. 600 (Ark. 2002) (privacy right of adults; contextual separation from Talbert)
Heikkila v. State, 352 Ark. 87 (Ark. 2003) (statutory interpretation; cannot read in words not present)