Pinder v. State, 2015 Ark. 423

Background

In 2002 Steven Pinder was convicted by a jury of two counts of rape and sentenced to life; this Court affirmed the conviction in 2004.
Pinder’s postconviction Rule 37.1 petition was previously denied; he filed a first petition to reinvest jurisdiction to pursue a coram nobis claim alleging a Brady violation based on a pretrial medical report by Dr. Jerry Jones.
This Court previously rejected that first coram-nobis petition for lack of diligence and held the Jones report would not have changed the verdict because it supported findings consistent with the victim’s account.
Pinder’s second petition (filed Sept. 1, 2015) alleges Dr. Ivy McGee-Reed testified falsely at trial about (1) the victim lacking a hymen and evidence of repeated sexual activity, and (2) the date she obtained her medical license.
Pinder argues the State knew McGee-Reed’s testimony was false (constituting prosecutorial misconduct) and that newly discovered evidence about her license date undermines the conviction.
The Court denied the second petition, concluding Pinder failed to show the State knowingly used false testimony, reasserted the prior lack of diligence regarding the Jones report, and explained coram-nobis is unavailable for mere recantation, credibility attacks, or newly discovered evidence alone.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether coram-nobis relief is warranted because the State used false testimony by Dr. McGee-Reed	Pinder: McGee-Reed knowingly testified falsely about hymen and repeated sexual activity; State knew and violated due process	State: No proof the State knowingly used false testimony; claim is untimely and was previously addressed	Denied — no proof of knowing use of false testimony; coram-nobis not available for credibility/recantation claims
Whether the Jones pretrial medical report supports relief as withheld Brady evidence	Pinder: Jones’s report contradicts McGee-Reed and shows Brady violation	State: Pinder previously knew of the report and lacked due diligence; report would not have changed the verdict	Denied — prior ruling on lack of diligence stands; report would not have prevented conviction
Whether newly discovered evidence about McGee-Reed’s license date warrants coram-nobis	Pinder: Misstated license date shows untruthfulness undermining trial	State: Misstated date is not a fundamental error affecting outcome	Denied — coram-nobis cannot be granted for newly discovered evidence alone unless it shows fundamental error
Whether coram-nobis can be used to litigate insufficiency of evidence or witness credibility	Pinder: Implied challenge to evidence through allegations of false testimony	State: Sufficiency and credibility are not grounds for coram-nobis	Denied — credibility and sufficiency issues are not cognizable in coram-nobis proceedings

Key Cases Cited

Pinder v. State, 357 Ark. 275, 166 S.W.3d 49 (Ark. 2004) (affirming conviction)
Newman v. State, 2009 Ark. 539, 354 S.W.3d 61 (Ark. 2009) (trial court may hear coram-nobis only after this Court grants permission)
Sanders v. State, 374 Ark. 70, 285 S.W.3d 630 (Ark. 2008) (medical evidence consistent with victim’s account does not warrant coram-nobis)
Westerman v. State, 2015 Ark. 69, 456 S.W.3d 374 (Ark. 2015) (strong presumption the conviction is valid in coram-nobis)
Roberts v. State, 2013 Ark. 56, 425 S.W.3d 771 (Ark. 2013) (burden on petitioner to show fundamental error extrinsic to the record)
Howard v. State, 2012 Ark. 177, 403 S.W.3d 38 (Ark. 2012) (enumerating four categories of coram-nobis relief)
Smith v. State, 200 Ark. 767, 140 S.W.2d 675 (Ark. 1940) (recantation not a ground for coram-nobis)
Smith v. State, 301 Ark. 374, 784 S.W.2d 595 (Ark. 1990) (newly discovered evidence alone does not justify coram-nobis)
McArthur v. State, 2014 Ark. 367, 439 S.W.3d 681 (Ark. 2014) (credibility and sufficiency not cognizable in coram-nobis)
Hooper v. State, 2015 Ark. 108, 458 S.W.3d 229 (Ark. 2015) (distinguishing fundamental error from newly discovered information)