Shreck v. State, 2017 Ark. 39

Background

Appellant Richard Shreck engaged in online chats in a room that featured participants discussing sexually deviant behavior; an undercover detective posed as a single mother offering her fictitious minor children for sex.
Shreck arranged to meet the undercover officer and was arrested at the meeting; he was charged with two counts of conspiracy to commit rape and two counts of attempted internet stalking of a child (the stalking counts were nolle prossed).
During chats admitted at sentencing, Shreck discussed interest in "snuff" and bondage sex, said he had thought about snuffing a child, exchanged a photo of a device he made purportedly for impaling women, and sought pictures of the officer’s fictitious children.
A jury convicted Shreck of two counts of conspiracy to commit rape and the trial court admitted the snuff-related conversations and images during the sentencing phase; the court imposed 30 years per count (maximum sentence).
Shreck appealed, arguing the snuff conversations and impalement images were irrelevant and unduly prejudicial under Ark. R. Evid. 401 and 403; the State maintained the material was relevant character evidence for sentencing under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-97-103(5).
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the admission of the evidence, holding it was relevant to character and not unfairly prejudicial; Justice Hart dissented, arguing the materials were unrelated fantasies and more prejudicial than probative.

Issues

Issue	Appellant's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Admissibility at sentencing of snuff-related chats and impalement images (relevancy under Rule 401 and §16-97-103(5))	Evidence was irrelevant to the charged conspiracies because the snuff fantasies were not part of the proven offense and included uncharged conduct/fantasies	Evidence showed deviant sexual character and was connected to the conspiracy planning; thus relevant for sentencing character evidence	Court held evidence relevant: it tended to prove character and conduct related to the convicted sexual-conspiracy offenses
Exclusion under Rule 403 (undue prejudice outweighing probative value)	Admission was highly prejudicial and likely influenced jury to impose maximum sentences for uncharged, more extreme fantasies	Although prejudicial, the evidence’s probative value regarding appellant’s dangerousness and sexual deviance outweighed prejudice	Court held evidence was not unfairly prejudicial and did not abuse its discretion in admitting it
Whether admission amounted to sentencing for unproven/uncharged crimes (Walls concern)	Introducing snuff/homicidal fantasies was like relying on unproven crimes and violated Walls v. State	Distinction: appellant was convicted of conspiracy to commit rape of minors and the snuff material was part of the same planning and showed intent/character	Court found no parallel to Walls: here the evidence related to the same conspiracy and planning, not unrelated uncharged crimes
Whether admission required reversal because sentence was maximum	Receiving maximum sentence shows prejudice from evidence and warrants new sentencing	A within-statutory-range sentence does not by itself prove prejudice; appellant must show prejudicial effect outweighs probative value	Court held appellant’s conclusory claim insufficient and affirmed sentences

Key Cases Cited

Crawford v. State, 362 Ark. 301 (discussing admissibility of related character evidence at sentencing)
MacKool v. State, 365 Ark. 416 (trial court discretion on relevance and prejudice)
Walls v. State, 336 Ark. 490 (reversal where sentencing rested on uncharged, unproven crimes)
Branstetter v. State, 346 Ark. 62 (prejudice alone insufficient to exclude evidence under Rule 403)
Bond v. State, 374 Ark. 332 (sentence within statutory range does not automatically show prejudice)
Echols v. State, 326 Ark. 917 (definition of relevant evidence)
Diemer v. State, 365 Ark. 61 (appellant’s burden on appeal; conclusory allegations insufficient)