Sullivan v. State, 2012 Ark. 74

Background

Cameka Sullivan appeals a Saline County Circuit Court judgment sentencing her to 216 months' imprisonment and convicting her of permitting abuse of a minor and hindering the abuser.
She raises six trial errors, including speedy-trial denial, sufficiency of evidence, hearsay and other evidentiary issues, and sex-offender registration.
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed; Sullivan sought Supreme Court review, which granted review under Rule 1-2(e).
The Supreme Court affirmatively reviews de novo the speedy-trial issues and upholds the circuit court’s judgment; the COA opinion is vacated.
Evidence showed L.B., Sullivan’s 23-month-old daughter, suffered life-threatening brain injury with numerous other injuries indicating abuse; multiple witnesses testified about Lyons’s abuse and Sullivan’s knowledge or failure to act.
The court addressed five substantive issues and concluded no reversible error; Sullivan is not entitled to relief on speedy-trial, sufficiency, bolstered testimony, other witness testimony, or sex-offender registration challenges.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Speedy-trial violation?	State asserted delay attributable to Sullivan; argued excluded periods supported a timely trial.	Sullivan contends time periods should be excluded or reflect violation due to her absence and ongoing proceedings.	Speedy-trial period not violated; exclusions properly applied; burden on State satisfied.
Sufficiency of the evidence for permitting abuse of a minor and hindering?	State presented substantial medical and witness evidence showing abuse existed and Sullivan failed to act.	Sullivan argues insufficient proof of knowledge or action to prevent abuse and misapplication of defense.	Sufficient evidence supports both convictions; jury could conclude Sullivan consciously disregarded abuse and hindered investigation.
Admission of Z.B.'s testimony via redirect bolstering read from prior trial?	State used transcript to refresh memory after impeachment; not improper bolstering.	State improperly bolstered credibility by reading prior testimony to rehabilitate Z.B.	Court did not abuse discretion; use of transcript for refreshing recollection permissible; not reversible error.
Admission of Sonya Yenner's testimony (hearsay/relevance)?	Evidence showed Sullivan left children unsupervised; supports reckless failure to act.	Testimony was hearsay and prejudicial; relevance limited.	Testimony probative and not unduly prejudicial; admissible under discretionary evidentiary ruling.
Sex-offender registration amendment preserved for review?	Amended judgment requiring registration may be illegal or improperly decided without objection.	No preserved objection; statute and policy require registration; argument raised wrongly on appeal.	Issue not preserved; registration is regulatory and non-punitive; not reviewable as improper sentence; affirmed.

Key Cases Cited

Duncan v. Wright, 318 Ark. 153 (1994) (arrest-and-service timing not controlling for preemption of speedy trial)
Davis v. State, 375 Ark. 368 (2009) (courts bear burden to ensure timely trial; quotes availability responsibility)
Jolly v. State, 358 Ark. 180 (2004) (speedy-trial responsibilities and defendant availability guidance)
Miles v. State, 348 Ark. 544 (2002) (exclusion of delays when justified and recorded in proceedings)
Chandler v. State, 284 Ark. 560 (1985) (State duties to locate the accused; diligent efforts required)
Osborn v. State, 340 Ark. 444 (2000) (failure-to-appear as excludable period under Rule 28.3(e))
Thompson v. State, 264 Ark. 213 (1978) (availability and trial timing considerations in speedy-trial analysis)
Dillon v. State, 317 Ark. 384 (1994) (refreshing recollection and admissibility limits for witness testimony)
Buford v. State, 368 Ark. 87 (2006) (expert testimony admissibility in child-abuse cases)
Richie v. State, 2009 Ark. 602 (2009) (appeals preservation of issues; sex-offender registration considerations)
Glaze v. State, 2011 Ark. 464 (2011) (review of appellate precedents and standards for evidentiary rulings)