558 S.W.3d 833
Ark.2018Background
- Rogers lived with Tia Bryant and her four daughters (L.W., twins Mi.B. and T.B., and Ma.B.) and was treated as a father figure; the girls later alleged repeated sexual assaults occurring when they were teenagers.
- In Feb 2015 Rogers was charged with four counts of rape; a Pulaski County jury convicted him of three counts (Ma.B., Mi.B., and L.W.) and acquitted on one (T.B.); he received concurrent lengthy prison terms.
- At trial the State presented victims’ testimony describing multiple incidents (including details like use of a gold-wrapped condom and threats by Rogers) and limited medical/negligible physical evidence due to delay.
- Defense asserted fabrication and collusion by the mother and daughters after Rogers moved out; Rogers and several neighbors testified in his favor.
- During cross-examination the defense sought to impeach witness L.W. with a 2014 misdemeanor theft conviction; the circuit court disallowed the impeachment.
- On appeal the Supreme Court granted rehearing and, by majority, held the circuit court erred in excluding L.W.’s theft conviction for impeachment and that the error was not harmless given victims’ testimony was the sole evidentiary basis—reversing and remanding for a new trial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for rape convictions | State: victims’ detailed testimony and corroborative facts suffice | Rogers: delayed reporting, lack of physical evidence, and witness credibility undermine sufficiency (not preserved at trial) | Court: sufficiency challenge on those grounds not preserved; affirmed on preservation point but ultimately reversal based on other grounds after rehearing (see impeachment issue) |
| Admission of prior theft conviction to impeach witness (Rule 609) | Rogers: L.W.’s misdemeanor theft conviction impeaches her credibility because theft involves dishonesty per Rule 609(a) | State/Court below: questioned whether theft involved dishonesty or false statement; defense needed to proffer underlying facts | Court (majority): theft is a crime involving dishonesty per Ark. precedent and exclusion was an abuse of discretion; exclusion was not harmless because credibility was central—reversed and remanded for new trial |
| Harmless-error analysis of excluding impeachment evidence | State: exclusion harmless because evidence of guilt overwhelming | Rogers: exclusion prejudicial because case rested solely on victims’ credibility and L.W. was integral to intertwined accusations | Court: majority found exclusion not harmless given credibility central and interconnection of victims’ accounts; dissent argued error harmless and rehearing improper |
| Preservation/rehearing propriety | State: certain arguments not preserved for appeal | Rogers: sought rehearing after initial affirmance by 4-3, arguing harmless-error analysis | Dissent: would have denied rehearing as repetitive and would have affirmed; majority granted rehearing and reversed |
Key Cases Cited
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Regions Bank Tr. Dep't, 347 Ark. 826, 69 S.W.3d 20 (Ark. 2002) (rule that convictions involving dishonesty are admissible under Rule 609(a) and exclusion is abuse of discretion)
- Edwards v. Campbell, 2010 Ark. 398, 370 S.W.3d 250 (Ark. 2010) (misdemeanor theft of property is a crime of dishonesty for Rule 609 purposes)
- Floyd v. State, 278 Ark. 86, 643 S.W.2d 555 (Ark. 1982) (theft and related convictions treated as involving dishonesty under Rule 609)
- Gustafson v. State, 267 Ark. 278, 590 S.W.2d 853 (Ark. 1979) (earlier precedent concluding theft involves dishonesty)
- Scamardo v. State, 2013 Ark. 163, 426 S.W.3d 900 (Ark. 2013) (error in excluding impeachment can be non-harmless where witness credibility is crucial)
- Winfrey v. State, 293 Ark. 342, 738 S.W.2d 391 (Ark. 1987) (harmless-error framework when impeachment opportunity denied)
- Buford v. State, 368 Ark. 87, 243 S.W.3d 300 (Ark. 2006) (harmless-error finding where other strong evidence corroborated victim)
- Kelley v. State, 2009 Ark. 389, 327 S.W.3d 373 (Ark. 2009) (similar conduct among victims supported harmless-error analysis in prior case)