Turner v. State
538 S.W.3d 227
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- Victim April Robertson was attacked while running on a Lake Fayetteville trail: tackled, beaten, choked, and dragged into the woods by a man she later identified as Turner; she described his clothing and a ring marked “dad.”
- Physical evidence: victim’s headband, earbuds, and sunglasses were recovered; DNA linked the sunglasses to Turner; Turner later wore a similar “dad” ring when arrested.
- Turner was charged with kidnapping (Ark. Code Ann. § 5-11-102(a)(4),(6)) alleging nonconsensual restraint that substantially interfered with liberty with purpose to inflict injury or terrorize; convicted by jury and sentenced as a habitual offender to 30 years.
- Turner moved for directed verdicts at trial (denied), argued insufficient evidence of identification, restraint, and specific intent, and appealed those denials.
- Defense raised discovery/Brady issues when the State disclosed five days before trial that two other persons had been shown to the victim and eliminated; defense sought continuance and mistrial (denied). The court allowed cross-examination about those investigations.
- Additional contested issues on appeal: admissibility of Rule 404(b) evidence (testimony about a separate similar incident), and whether the county prosecutor’s office should be disqualified because a deputy-prosecutor-witness had been involved as a citizen witness.
Issues
| Issue | Turner’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence to support kidnapping conviction | Evidence insufficient to identify Turner, show substantial interference, or prove intent to injure/terrorize | Victim ID, physical restraint, dragging into woods, threats and conduct support kidnapping and purposeful intent | Affirmed — viewing evidence in light most favorable to verdict, substantial evidence supported restraint and intent |
| Brady/discovery (late disclosure of two other suspects and dashboard cam stills) | Late disclosure prevented meaningful investigation; continuance or mistrial required | Information was disclosed as soon as known; not exculpatory; defense could explore on cross-exam | Affirmed — no Brady violation shown; trial court did not abuse discretion denying continuance or mistrial; cross-examination allowed |
| Admissibility of other-acts evidence (Rule 404(b)) | Testimony about a similar contemporaneous event was unfairly prejudicial and improperly used to show propensity | Evidence was relevant to identity, preparation, and absence of mistake; probative value outweighed prejudice | Affirmed — trial court did not abuse discretion admitting testimony; relevant and not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice |
| Disqualification of prosecutor’s office (special prosecutor) | Deputy prosecutor who witnessed events and later became a witness created appearance of impropriety; office should be disqualified | Deputy did not act as an advocate, did not taint office, and defense could cross-examine for bias | Affirmed — no abuse of discretion in refusing to disqualify entire prosecutor’s office |
Key Cases Cited
- Conway v. State, 479 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. 2016) (standard for reviewing directed-verdict/sufficiency of evidence)
- Holly v. State, 520 S.W.3d 677 (Ark. 2017) (definition of substantial evidence standard)
- Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83 (1963) (prosecution must disclose favorable, material evidence)
- Strickler v. Greene, 527 U.S. 263 (1999) (Brady materiality standard: reasonable probability of different outcome)
- Figueroa v. State, 480 S.W.3d 888 (Ark. App. 2016) (Brady/late-disclosure facts sufficient to require reversal in prior rape case)
- Hamm v. State, 232 S.W.3d 463 (Ark. 2006) (Rule 404(b) framework and exceptions)
- Lard v. State, 431 S.W.3d 249 (Ark. 2014) (abuse-of-discretion standard for evidentiary rulings)