Stanton v. State, 2017 Ark. 155

Background

Marvin Stanton was convicted by a jury of first-degree murder and employing a firearm; sentenced to life plus 15 years consecutive. Convictions appealed.
The victim, Jesse Hamilton, was shot after a physical confrontation at a Texarkana gas station; parties disputed the facts and Stanton claimed justification/self‑defense.
Pretrial, the circuit court ruled that a 2007 incident in which Stanton allegedly drew a gun was inadmissible under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b).
On direct, Stanton testified about his background: Marines service, concealed-carry instructor, EMT, charitable/motorcycle-club activities, and community service—none of which expressly asserted a character for peacefulness.
On cross-examination the State asked whether Stanton was a peaceful, law‑abiding citizen and about two specific prior instances (pulling a gun in 2007; striking a woman) to impeach that character, after the court allowed rebuttal because Stanton had "placed character in issue."
The Arkansas Supreme Court held the circuit court abused its discretion by permitting the State to elicit those prior acts; reversed and remanded for a new trial.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Stanton)	Held
Whether the State could cross-examine Stanton on specific prior bad acts after Stanton’s background testimony	Stanton: By testifying favorably about his history and activities, Stanton opened the door to rebuttal of character for peacefulness under Ark. R. Evid. 404(a)(1) and 405(a)	Stanton: He did not put his character for peacefulness at issue; his background testimony was non‑character biographical evidence	Court: Reversed — State’s questioning about specific prior acts was improper; Stanton did not inject the trait of peacefulness to permit rebuttal
Whether the prior incidents were admissible under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) as other‑acts evidence	State: Claimed rebuttal and that prior pretrial exclusion was complied with; argued 404(a)/405 allowed inquiry once character was placed at issue	Stanton: 404(b) exclusion pretrial controlled; the acts weren’t offered for a permitted 404(b) purpose and were unfairly prejudicial under Rule 403	Court: 404(b) inapplicable; prior acts were not admitted for a permitted non‑character purpose and were inadmissible
Whether testimony about background (military, EMT, charity, weapons training) legitimately implicated character for peacefulness	State: Argued such testimony placed character in issue, allowing rebuttal	Stanton: Background was relevant to factual issues (military context, EMT aid, weapons familiarity), not an assertion of nonviolence	Court: Background testimony did not expressly claim peacefulness; thus rebuttal on peacefulness was not permitted
Whether admission of the improper evidence was harmless given overall record	State: Not directly argued as dispositive	Stanton: Argued prejudice necessitated reversal	Court: Because the evidence improperly admitted concerned violent character and defendant received life, error was prejudicial; reversed and remanded

Key Cases Cited

Rowdean v. State, 280 Ark. 146 (prior‑act evidence not admissible to show propensity; error to admit specific prior acts to prove aggressor)
Frye v. State, 2009 Ark. 110 (discussion of interaction between Rules 404 and 405 and methods of proving character)
Hawksley v. State, 276 Ark. 504 (rebuttal on peacefulness not allowed where defendant did not testify to that trait)
Spohn v. State, 310 Ark. 500 (contrasting rule: where defendant expressly testified about lack of violence, prosecution rebuttal permitted)
Friar v. State, 2016 Ark. 245 (standard of appellate review for evidentiary rulings: abuse of discretion)