Sylvester v. State
2016 Ark. 136
| Ark. | 2016Background
- On June 24, 2014, DeAnn Opitz was forced from a Staples parking lot at gunpoint, driven away, sexually assaulted, and later had money taken from her purse; she escaped at an EZ Mart and identified Ardwin Frank Sylvester as her assailant.
- Staples employees observed suspicious conduct and signaled Opitz; EZ Mart surveillance corroborated Opitz’s escape and was admitted at trial.
- Sylvester was tried in Sebastian County Circuit Court and convicted by a jury of kidnapping, rape, and aggravated robbery and sentenced to three life terms on May 14, 2015.
- Sylvester timely appealed, raising two issues: (1) insufficiency of the evidence for the three convictions; and (2) denial of a mistrial based on testimony that Sylvester asked for a lawyer (argued as a Doyle violation).
- At trial Sylvester’s motions for directed verdict were grounded solely on lack of jurisdiction; on appeal he asserted different sufficiency-based challenges to the elements of the offenses.
- The trial court denied a mistrial after an officer testified, unresponsive to a question, that Sylvester asked for a lawyer; the defense refused a curative instruction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Sylvester) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for kidnapping, rape, aggravated robbery | Trial record and victim/witness testimony established elements supporting convictions | Evidence insufficient because State failed to prove elements (restraint/interference for kidnapping; deviant sexual activity for rape; theft by threat for aggravated robbery) | Arguments not preserved: defendant’s directed-verdict motions at trial were only jurisdictional, so appellate insufficiency claims not reached; convictions affirmed |
| Denial of mistrial for witness’s statement that defendant "asked for a lawyer" (Doyle claim) | No improper use of post-arrest silence; witness’s comment was unresponsive and not used to impeach; prosecutor did not comment on silence | Testimony that he asked for a lawyer was an impermissible comment on post-arrest silence (Doyle violation) and prejudicial; mistrial required | No Doyle violation found because statement was not an attempt to impeach silence; curative instruction offered and defense declined it; denial of mistrial affirmed |
Key Cases Cited
- Doyle v. Ohio, 426 U.S. 610 (Due process bars use of defendant’s post-arrest silence for impeachment)
- Greer v. Miller, 483 U.S. 756 (Clarifies limits on use of post-arrest silence and impeachment)