Sullivan v. State
2011 Ark. App. 576
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Appellant Cameka Sullivan was found guilty of permitting the abuse of a minor and hindering apprehension or conviction by a Saline County jury, with an aggregate sentence of eighteen years and a sex-offender registration requirement.
- The child victim, Sullivan’s twenty-three-month-old daughter, suffered severe brain injury at Arkansas Children’s Hospital; initial account claimed a bunk-bed fall, which doctors contradicted as capable of causing the injury.
- Sullivan’s oldest daughter, Z.B., testified about prior abuse by Lyons and that Sullivan did not believe or act on those reports; Z.B. described Lyons’s harmful acts toward the child.
- Sullivan was arrested on July 10, 2005; charged first with first-degree battery, later information charged the current offenses; trial occurred June 22–23, 2010.
- The State presented medical testimony detailing multiple older injuries and their ages, and the defense challenged admissibility of certain lay and expert statements.
- On appeal, Sullivan challenged sufficiency of evidence, speedy-trial denial, credibility bolstering of Z.B., allegedly irrelevant testimony by Yenner, speculative testimony, and sex-offender registration.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence | Sullivan contends evidence fails to prove permitting abuse or hindering conviction. | Sullivan argues the injuries were not attributable to her conduct and that she acted promptly when harm was discovered. | Evidence supports conviction; sufficient to prove both offenses. |
| Speedy-trial denial | State failed to bring Sullivan to trial within the speedy-trial period. | Court erred by not dismissing; delays were improper and not properly excluded. | Trial court did not err; delays properly excluded; speedy-trial denial rejected. |
| Bolstering Z.B.'s credibility | State properly bolstered Z.B. after cross-examination and memory-refresh. | Bolstering was improper and prejudicial. | Admission upheld; any error harmless due to overwhelming evidence of guilt. |
| Yenner's testimony | Yenner’s testimony about unrelated observations was relevant to the case. | Testimony was irrelevant and prejudicial. | Testimony affirmed as non-prejudicial; evidence overwhelming; no reversible error. |
| Speculative and irrelevant testimony | Dr. Esquivel’s assertion and other speculative testimony were improper. | Any error was harmless given overwhelming guilt. | Admission of challenged testimony upheld; harmless error in light of other evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Harris v. State, 284 Ark. 247 (1984) (speedy-trial and due-process principles cited)
- Price v. State, 365 Ark. 25 (2006) (standard for sufficiency and evidentiary review in Arkansas)
- Rodriguez v. State, 372 Ark. 335 (2008) (evaluation of evidence and evidentiary rulings on appeal)
- Bohanan v. State, 324 Ark. 158 (1996) (credibility and admissibility of testimony considerations)
- Buford v. State, 368 Ark. 87 (2006) (prejudice and harmless error standards in reviewing trial errors)
- Sherman v. State, 326 Ark. 153 (1996) (harmless-error analysis for improperly admitted evidence)
- Stone v. State, 371 Ark. 78 (2007) (notice-of-appeal timing and procedural consequences)