Prater v. State, 2012 Ark. 164

Prater was convicted by jury of rape, kidnapping, second-degree sexual assault, and felony impersonation, and sentenced to 28 years total on July 25, 2008.
Appellate and postconviction steps followed; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed in 2009, and Prater filed a Rule 37.1 petition dismissed by the circuit court in 2011.
Prater alleges ineffective assistance of trial counsel on three grounds: failure to preserve a directed-verdict issue on kidnapping; failure to impeach with social-media photographs and a derogatory comment; and failure to object to a Doyle v. Ohio violation or to prepare him for testimony.
Key trial facts: two women (A.K. and A.R.) testified Prater coerced and raped A.R. after posing as an undercover officer; DNA evidence linked Prater to semen found on A.R.’s clothing; Prater testified the encounter was consensual.
During cross-examination, defense counsel did not object to a line of questioning about Prater’s silence; the court later considered whether this Doyle issue was a trial strategy decision.
Trial court and on-appeal analyses centered on whether counsel’s alleged deficiencies were objectively unreasonable and whether they prejudiced the outcome under Strickland v. Washington.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Failure to preserve kidnapping-directed-verdict issue	Prater argues trial counsel should have moved for a directed verdict on restraint beyond rape; issue preserved	State contends restraint was proven by threats/deception; no meritorious basis absent preservation	No reversible error; not meritorious.
Use of photographs and 'hard core bitches' comment as impeachment evidence	Prater asserts counsel failed to impeach with relevant photographs and that the comment was admissible	State argues photos not relevant and could inflame jury; trial strategy supported	No ineffective assistance; photos and comment were not error.
Doyle v. Ohio violation and counsel’s preparation for testimony	Prater claims counsel should have objected to post-arrest silence references and adequately prepared him	State contends any Doyle issue was handled as a strategic choice; mock questioning not required	Doyle violation occurred, but counsel's conduct not deficient; strategy supported; no prejudice established.

Summerlin v. State, 296 Ark. 347 (1988) (restraint in kidnapping requires more than incidental to rape; deception/threats can suffice)
Kemp v. State, 347 Ark. 52 (2001) (ineffective-assistance standard; clear error review of postconviction ruling)
Burnett v. State, 310 Ark. 202 (1992) (Doyle-type impeachment and strategic defense decisions; mock examination not required)
Robinson v. State, 348 Ark. 280 (2002) (on Doyle issues, questions of opening door and prejudice analyzed)
Strickland v. Washington, 466 U.S. 668 (1984) (establishes two-prong test for deficient performance and prejudice)
Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (1987) (Miranda warnings prerequisite; Doyle implications for post-arrest silence later narrowed)
Tarkington v. State, 313 Ark. 399 (1993) (inadvertent reference to silence not reversible error when not dwelled upon)
Ferrell v. State, 325 Ark. 455 (1996) (no reversible Doyle error where prosecutor did not dwell on silence and defense did not object on appeal)