Rogers v. State
2017 Ark. App. 521
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Edward Darnell Rogers, living with girlfriend Tia Bryant and her four daughters, was convicted by a Pulaski County jury of three counts of rape (victims: L.W., Mi.B., Ma.B.) and sentenced as a habitual offender to an aggregate 40 years. One count (T.B.) resulted in acquittal.
- The daughters testified Rogers, whom they regarded as a father figure, began sexually touching them as teens and described multiple penetrative encounters; they said he warned them not to tell.
- Bryant removed Rogers from the home in October 2013 after the girls disclosed; she did not report the incidents to police until November 2014.
- Rogers testified and denied the allegations, offering alibi/explanation that family discord and jealousy motivated the accusations.
- At trial, defense counsel moved for directed verdicts on element grounds (age/guardian status/penetration); those motions were denied. Defense sought to impeach State witness L.W. with a 2014 misdemeanor theft-of-property conviction but the trial court sustained the State’s objection.
- The Court of Appeals found the exclusion of L.W.’s theft conviction under Ark. R. Evid. 609(a)(2) erroneous and reversed and remanded for a new trial or further proceedings, despite concluding the evidence was otherwise sufficient for conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Rogers' Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Victims’ testimony inconsistent, no physical evidence, delayed reporting — not enough to convict | Victim testimony describing penetration is sufficient; jury resolves credibility | Convictions supported by legally sufficient evidence; directed-verdict challenges not preserved beyond the grounds raised at trial |
| Admissibility of prior conviction for impeachment (Rule 609(a)(2)) | L.W.’s 2014 misdemeanor theft conviction bears on truthfulness/dishonesty and should be admissible to impeach her credibility | Misdemeanor theft is not a dishonesty crime warranting impeachment; objection sustained | Trial court erred in excluding the theft conviction because theft is a crime involving dishonesty under Rule 609(a)(2) |
| Preservation / Offer of proof for impeachment evidence | Argued the record showed the conviction (colloquy identified a 2014 misdemeanor theft), so no certified proffer required | Trial record lacked a formal proffer and certified copy; issue not adequately preserved | Majority: the conviction’s nature was made known to the court so proffer unnecessary; dissent: inadequate offer and ruling, so issue not preserved |
| Harmless-error analysis and impact on verdict | Exclusion was harmful because L.W.’s credibility affected verdicts on sisters given similarity of allegations | Evidence against Rogers otherwise strong; error harmless | Majority: cannot conclude beyond a reasonable doubt the error was harmless; reversed and remanded for new trial or further proceedings |
Key Cases Cited
- Rounsaville v. State, 372 Ark. 252, 273 S.W.3d 486 (preservation and scope of directed-verdict motions)
- Ward v. State, 370 Ark. 398, 260 S.W.3d 292 (uncorroborated rape testimony can support conviction)
- Gatlin v. State, 320 Ark. 120, 895 S.W.2d 526 (scientific proof not required; victim’s testimony describing penetration sufficient)
- Floyd v. State, 278 Ark. 86, 643 S.W.2d 555 (theft considered a crime involving dishonesty under Rule 609)
- James v. State, 274 Ark. 162, 622 S.W.2d 669 (theft conviction admissible under Rule 609)
- Jones v. State, 321 Ark. 649, 907 S.W.2d 672 (offer of proof requirement for excluded evidence to preserve error)
- Swinford v. State, 85 Ark. App. 326, 154 S.W.3d 262 (harmless-error standard for erroneous denial of impeachment)
- Rhodes v. State, 276 Ark. 203, 634 S.W.2d 107 (distinguishing truthfulness-specific inquiries under Rule 608)
- Ashley v. State, 358 Ark. 414, 191 S.W.3d 520 (need for an obtained ruling to preserve an objection)
- Kelley v. State, 2009 Ark. 389, 327 S.W.3d 373 (pedophile exception to Rule 404(b) for similar acts evidence)