Sweeten v. State, 564 S.W.3d 575

Michael Lee Sweeten was convicted in Miller County Circuit Court of three counts of second-degree sexual assault involving two victims: A.G. (alleged assaults at age 11–12) and H.G. (alleged assaults at about age 6).
At trial, both victims testified; Sweeten was convicted of one count related to A.G. and two counts related to H.G.
Sweeten moved pretrial to admit evidence of A.G.'s prior sexual assaults by two other men to show an alternative source of sexual knowledge; the court denied the motion as barred by the rape-shield statute.
Sweeten did not proffer testimony or evidence at the required in camera hearing to satisfy the Townsend factors for admitting prior sexual-conduct evidence; he argued the court already knew the facts of the prior case.
The State called Missy Davidson, a forensic-interviewer/program director, as an expert; she testified about interview techniques and characteristics looked for in child abuse interviews, but did not testify about the victims in this case or directly vouch for their credibility.
The trial court allowed Davidson to testify as an expert; Sweeten objected that her testimony improperly bolstered victim credibility. The appellate court affirmed the convictions.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of victim's prior sexual-conduct evidence under rape-shield statute	State: Rape-shield bars prior sexual-conduct evidence unless in-camera findings show relevance and probative value outweighs prejudice	Sweeten: Prior assaults satisfied Townsend factors and should be admitted to show alternative source of sexual knowledge	Affirmed denial — Sweeten failed to proffer evidentiary proof at in-camera hearing; issue not preserved for review
Standards for admitting prior sexual-conduct evidence (Townsend factors)	N/A (State relied on statute and precedent requiring factors be shown)	Sweeten: All five Townsend factors were met	Not reached on merits due to failure to proffer evidence; preservation issue precludes review
Admissibility of forensic-interviewer expert testimony	State: Expert testimony about interview methods and indicators is helpful and admissible	Sweeten: Testimony was unhelpful under Rules 401/403/702 and effectively vouched for victim credibility	Affirmed — testimony described general interview techniques and indicators, did not opine on these victims' veracity, and did not improperly vouch
Whether expert testimony impermissibly bolstered witness credibility	State: Expert did not opine on truthfulness of these witnesses	Sweeten: Whole testimony functionally told jury victims were credible	Affirmed — appellate court found no abuse of discretion; expert did not testify about these interviews or play videos for jury

Woodall v. State, 376 S.W.3d 408 (Ark. 2011) (rape-shield rule and exception; circuit court discretion)
State v. Townsend, 233 S.W.3d 680 (Ark. 2006) (five-factor test for admitting child’s prior sexual-conduct evidence)
Dicandia v. State, 2010 Ark. 413 (pretrial in-camera hearing requirement; defendant must proffer evidence)
Sorum v. State, 526 S.W.3d 50 (Ark. App. 2017) (failure to proffer at hearing precludes appellate review)
Hill v. State, 988 S.W.2d 487 (Ark. 1999) (error when expert effectively testifies that victim is telling the truth)
Cox v. State, 220 S.W.3d 231 (Ark. App. 2005) (reversal where forensic interviewer testified victim was highly credible)
Purdie v. State, 379 S.W.3d 541 (Ark. App. 2010) (reversal where interviewer reviewed tape and vouched no coaching or fabrication)