Robinson v. State
2016 Ark. App. 550
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2016Background
- Appellant Bobby Lee Robinson was tried as a habitual offender for second-degree sexual assault for allegedly putting his penis in a 15‑year‑old victim’s hand, ejaculating on her hand and blanket; jury convicted and sentenced to 30 years and a $15,000 fine.
- Victim S.L. testified she was asleep, woke with her hand on Robinson’s penis, tried to pull away, Robinson held her hand, moved it and ejaculated; she reported the incident immediately and family preserved the soiled blanket.
- Forensic testing identified semen on the blanket and matched it to Robinson’s DNA with extremely high certainty.
- Robinson moved for directed verdicts (denied) and sought to admit evidence under the rape‑shield statute that the victim was sexually active with a boyfriend and that Robinson had threatened to reveal that (motion denied after in camera hearing).
- The State sought and was allowed to admit prior remarks Robinson made to the victim about her breasts under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b); Robinson objected under Rules 403 and 404(b).
Issues
| Issue | Robinson's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence (forcible compulsion / physical helplessness) | No proof Robinson forcibly compelled act or victim was physically helpless; semen alone insufficient; victim may have fabricated story | Victim’s testimony that Robinson restrained her hand and she was asleep when act began, plus DNA on blanket, suffices | Conviction supported; testimony showed forcible compulsion and sleeping victim was physically helpless |
| Exclusion of evidence about victim’s alleged sexual activity and Robinson’s threat (rape‑shield) | Evidence showed motive to fabricate and provided independent knowledge of sexual matters; exclusion violated right to present a defense | Rape‑shield bars specific prior sexual conduct unless court finds probative value outweighs prejudice; semen evidence made alleged motive irrelevant | Trial court did not abuse discretion; exclusion proper under rape‑shield statute; no constitutional violation shown |
| Admission of prior sexual remarks to victim (404(b)) | Remarks were uncouth but prejudicial and not probative of a specific intent to commit this act | Remarks showed sexual awareness/attraction to victim, were relevant to state of mind and corroborative; probative value outweighed prejudice | Admission not an abuse of discretion under Rules 404(b) and 403; testimony properly admitted |
Key Cases Cited
- Dillon v. State, 317 Ark. 384, 877 S.W.2d 915 (discusses standard for substantial evidence review)
- Mosley v. State, 323 Ark. 244, 914 S.W.2d 731 (forcible compulsion test—whether act was against the victim’s will)
- Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415, 17 S.W.3d 61 (jury may resolve credibility and uncorroborated child testimony can suffice)
- Marion v. State, 267 Ark. 345, 590 S.W.2d 288 (prior decision allowing victim’s motive evidence where probative value warranted)
- Jackson v. State, 368 Ark. 610, 249 S.W.3d 127 (limits on admitting prior sexual conduct; relevance and probative‑vs‑prejudicial balancing)
- Lard v. State, 2014 Ark. 1, 431 S.W.3d 249 (Rule 404(b) admissibility requires independent relevance; Rule 403 balancing)