Stewart v. State
423 S.W.3d 69
Ark.2012Background
- Appellant was convicted of rape of J.H., a 23-year-old with cognitive impairment functioning at about a first/second-grade level.
- Appellant, a family friend, stayed with J.H. and her parents and had sex with J.H. on at least one occasion, resulting in a pregnancy supported by paternity testing.
- State moved in limine (Aug. 15, 2011) to exclude evidence of the victim’s prior sexual activity under the rape-shield statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-42-101.
- Defense sought to introduce evidence involving the defendant and the victim directly, not third parties, but the court restricted such testimony as barred by the rape-shield statute.
- Trial court repeatedly barred discussion of the victim’s prior sexual conduct; defense later argued it could prove capacity to consent, but the court remained skeptical.
- Jury found appellant guilty of rape and recommended 70 years’ imprisonment; judgment entered Sept. 13, 2011; notice of appeal filed Sept. 22, 2011.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rape-shield applicability to exclude prior sexual conduct | Gunter argues admitted prior acts show victim’s non-defect capacity | Gunner contends relevance to defense of consent capacity | Not preserved; exclusion affirmed under rape-shield statute |
| Affirmative defense of capacity to consent under 5-14-102(e) | Appellant asserts prior acts show capacity to consent | State contends no preservation or proper proffer | Not preserved; trial procedure not followed; affirmed |
| Confrontation clause challenge to rape-shield application | Constitutional right violated by shielding testimony | State argues no preservation; statute does not violate confrontation rights | Not preserved; rape-shield analysis still upholds admissibility limits |
Key Cases Cited
- Turner v. State, 355 Ark. 541, 141 S.W.3d 352 (2004) (rape-shield relevance and balancing test guidance)
- Gaines v. State, 313 Ark. 561, 855 S.W.2d 956 (1993) (rape-shield implications and confrontation considerations)
- Allen v. State, 374 Ark. 309, 287 S.W.3d 579 (2008) (procedural requirements for evidentiary objections under §16-42-101(c))
- Donihoo v. State, 825 Ark. 488, 931 S.W.2d 69 (1996) (necessity of specific evidentiary proffers to assess relevance)