Ressler v. State
2017 Ark. App. 208
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Richard Ressler was charged by a Craighead County jury with rape of his daughter; convicted and sentenced to 30 years; he appealed.
- Police interviewed the victim and her mother separately; Detective Racy prepared an affidavit and obtained a bench warrant for Ressler. Ressler was interviewed at the station, signed a Miranda form, and the interview was recorded and played at trial.
- Detective Racy collected evidence from the victim’s home with her consent, later obtained a search warrant for Ressler’s home, and seized items (olive oil, books, CD, computer parts) said to corroborate the victim’s account.
- The victim (then 19) testified to a long history of sexual abuse beginning in childhood, including oral sex, digital and penile penetration, sex toys, and use of olive oil as lubricant; journal entries and other testimony were admitted.
- Defense argued (1) insufficient corroboration / no proof of penetration, (2) unlawfully obtained evidence from searches and seizures, and (3) that Ressler’s stationhouse statements should be suppressed because he was not told the specific crime he was suspected of.
- The trial court denied motions to suppress and for directed verdict; jury convicted. On appeal the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Ressler) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to support rape conviction | Victim’s testimony (and corroborating items seized) suffices to show penetration and supports conviction | Victim’s testimony was uncorroborated and failed to prove penetration or specific dates | Affirmed — victim’s testimony alone can sustain a rape conviction; corroborating items also supported verdict |
| Admissibility of evidence seized from victim’s home / search of defendant’s home | Seizures from victim’s home were consensual; items from defendant’s home were obtained pursuant to a valid warrant | Seizures/searches were improper; warrant based on uncorroborated hearsay or occurred before warrant issuance | Affirmed — defendant failed to develop argument; consensual seizure from victim’s home; warrant-support and search issues unpreserved or insufficiently argued |
| Admission of defendant’s custodial statements | Statements were voluntary; defendant executed Miranda waiver and acknowledged understanding | Statements should be suppressed because defendant was not told the specific crime he was suspected of and was not free to leave | Affirmed — no requirement that suspect know all possible subjects or the specific crime before waiving rights (citing Colorado v. Spring and Arkansas precedent) |
| Preservation / appellate review of suppression claims | State: defendant did not adequately preserve or develop suppression theory on appeal | Defendant argues suppression of various items and statements; appellate briefing lacked legal authority and clarity | Affirmed — appellate claims undeveloped or unpreserved; court declines to reverse on unsupported arguments |
Key Cases Cited
- Byrum v. State, 318 Ark. 87 (Ark. 1994) (sufficiency review and double-jeopardy preservation rule)
- LeFever v. State, 91 Ark. App. 86 (Ark. App. 2005) (appellate standard: view evidence in light most favorable to the State)
- Harmon v. State, 340 Ark. 18 (Ark. 2000) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Brown v. State, 374 Ark. 341 (Ark. 2008) (victim’s uncorroborated testimony may support rape conviction)
- Vance v. State, 2011 Ark. 392 (Ark. 2011) (uncorroborated testimony of a victim sufficient to sustain rape conviction)
- Colorado v. Spring, 479 U.S. 564 (U.S. 1987) (suspect need not know all possible subjects of questioning to validly waive Miranda rights)
- Ramirez v. State, 91 Ark. App. 271 (Ark. App. 2005) (no requirement that defendant know he is suspect in a specific crime before waiving rights)
- Williamson v. State, 2013 Ark. 347 (Ark. 2013) (arguments not raised below are unpreserved for appeal)