Sanders v. State
2017 Ark. App. 567
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- In 2016 a Hot Spring County jury convicted Darrell Edward Sanders of two counts of rape; he was sentenced to 42 years in the ADC.
- Victim S.J. was 14 in 2014 and lived with Sanders on weekends; Sanders was alleged to have raped her in locations including a car, a church, and his home.
- The State sought to admit under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) testimony from Sanders’s two adult daughters alleging prior sexual abuse by Sanders when they were roughly the same age as S.J.
- Sanders did not move for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case or at the close of all evidence; he later challenged sufficiency of the evidence on appeal.
- The circuit court admitted the daughters’ testimony under the pedophile exception to Rule 404(b); Sanders appealed, arguing insufficient evidence for one rape conviction and that the 404(b) evidence was improperly admitted.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding Sanders waived his sufficiency challenge and that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the prior-act testimony.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for second rape conviction | State: evidence supported conviction (jury found guilt) | Sanders: no proof he was guardian of victim for that count | Waived on appeal for failure to move for directed verdict; sufficiency challenge barred |
| Admissibility of prior-act testimony under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) (pedophile exception) | State: daughters’ testimony is independently relevant to show relation, familiarity, proclivity, and depraved sexual instinct | Sanders: testimony was improper propensity evidence and prejudicial | Trial court didn’t abuse discretion; pedophile exception applies given similarity in victims’ ages, locations, and sexual acts; testimony admissible |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 349 Ark. 331 (addressing preservation and sequencing of sufficiency challenges) (procedural preservation of sufficiency claims)
- Grant v. State, 357 Ark. 91 (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)
- Spencer v. State, 348 Ark. 230 (404(b) requires prior acts be independently relevant)
- Williams v. State, 103 Ark. 70 (recognizing longstanding pedophile exception to admit prior sexual conduct with children)
- Parish v. State, 357 Ark. 260 (pedophile exception admissible to show proclivity and depraved sexual instinct)
- Allen v. State, 374 Ark. 309 (similarity requirement for applying pedophile exception)
- Hamm v. State, 365 Ark. 647 (discussing degree-of-similarity analysis for admitting other-act sexual evidence)