State v. Cossio, 2017 Ark. 297

Background

Miguel Cossio was charged with raping R.S. while she was physically helpless (unable to consent) for an alleged July 10, 2015 offense.
Cossio moved pretrial to admit evidence of R.S.’s prior sexual conduct (lap dances between R.S. and Shauna Harrelson on July 8) and notified intent to raise a mistake/mental-condition defense.
R.S. testified she was an exotic dancer, that on July 8 she and Harrelson exchanged lap dances (no intercourse) while Cossio watched and took photos, and that on July 9 she had taken oxycodone and did not remember parts of the evening.
The circuit court excluded the photos under the rape‑shield statute but allowed testimony about the July 8 events as res gestae to show the prelude/relationship between parties, and barred the mistake-of-mental-condition defense (consent not a defense to rape of a physically helpless person).
The State appealed interlocutorily under Ark. R. App. P.—Crim. 3(a)(3) (appeal from pretrial order admitting victim’s prior sexual-conduct evidence).
The Arkansas Supreme Court majority reversed, holding the circuit court abused its discretion admitting the prior sexual-conduct testimony under the rape‑shield statute; two justices dissented.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Cossio)	Held
Whether the court has jurisdiction for interlocutory appeal of an order admitting victim’s prior sexual-conduct evidence	State: Rule 3(a)(3) permits interlocutory appeal of orders admitting such evidence	N/A	Court: Jurisdiction proper under Ark. R. App. P.—Crim. 3(a)(3) and Rule 3(d) automatic appeal for rape-shield rulings
Whether the July 8 lap-dance testimony was excluded by the rape‑shield statute	State: The prior sexual conduct is irrelevant when consent is not at issue and is barred as prejudicial under Ark. Code §16-42-101 and Ark. R. Evid. 411	Cossio: Evidence relevant to his state of mind, relationship with victim, and forms part of res gestae; also probative of victim credibility	Court: Relevance not shown; when consent isn’t an issue sexual conduct with a third party is collateral; admission was an abuse of discretion and reversed
Whether the July 8 events were admissible as res gestae to explain the charged offense	State: Prior conduct is collateral and not part of the continuing episode; not causally or contemporaneously connected	Cossio: July 8 events were the prelude/continuation leading into July 9–10 and therefore part of the res gestae	Court: Events were separate social gatherings, not intermingled or a continuing sequence; res gestae admission was erroneous
Whether any non-sexual facts about July 8 (e.g., passed out, drinking, oxycodone) could be admitted	State: Only sexual-conduct evidence is barred; non-sexual evidence might be relevant to unconsciousness but relevance of the lap-dance facts to the rape charge was not shown	Cossio: July 8 conduct and circumstances probative of victim’s consciousness/state next night	Court: R.S.’s sexual conduct on July 8 has no probative link to whether she was physically helpless during the alleged rape and any marginal relevance is substantially outweighed by prejudice

Key Cases Cited

Turner v. State, 258 Ark. 425 (describing res gestae as acts immediately antecedent, contemporaneous, or following the crime that explain the transaction)
Gaines v. State, 340 Ark. 99 (res gestae exception allows circumstances explaining a charged act, motive, or state of mind)
Farmer v. State, 341 Ark. 220 (sexual gratification is rarely provable by direct evidence and may be inferred from circumstances)
Bobo v. State, 267 Ark. 1 (addressing admissibility of nude photographs and weighing probative value against prejudicial nature)
McGalliard v. State, 306 Ark. 181 (interpretation of statutory terms by their ordinary meaning)
Warren v. State, 314 Ark. 192 (related authority on definitions and evidence issues)
Dandridge v. State, 292 Ark. 40 (court will not reverse when a circuit court reaches the right result for the wrong reason)