Wallace v. State
2010 Ark. App. 706
Ark. Ct. App.2010Background
- Appellant Byron Wallace appeals his first-degree domestic battery conviction and 60-year habitual-offender sentence in Arkansas.
- He does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence but raises confrontation and evidentiary challenges.
- The stabbing occurred against Tracy Harris, his then girlfriend and mother of his son; conviction and sentence were entered in 2009.
- During sentencing, the State introduced Wallace’s prison pen-pack and testimony from ADC records supervisor Marion Lester about disciplinary history.
- Wallace argues the sentencing-phase testimony violated the Confrontation Clause and Melendez-Diaz precedent; he also challenges guilt-phase testimony and certain color photographs.
- The appellate court affirms the conviction and sentence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Confrontation in sentencing | Wallace argues Melendez-Diaz/Confrontation Clause apply to sentencing testimony. | State contends pen-pack custodian testimony is proper administrative testimony; Crawford does not govern sentencing. | No Confrontation-Clause error; Melendez-Diaz does not extend to sentencing. |
| Guilt-phase testimony by officer | Detective Hudson's interpretation of Harris's statement was irrelevant and prejudicial. | Wallace preserved no objection; testimony supports interpretation of the threat context. | No clear abuse; preserving objections avoided reversible error. |
| Color photographs at trial | Color photos are overly prejudicial and unnecessary; black-and-white would suffice. | Color photos provided probative value; untimely request to switch was impractical. | Admissible; photographs corroborated testimony and injury evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Banks v. State, 2010 Ark. 108 (Ark. 2010) (relevance standard; abuse of discretion reviewed for admissibility)
- Buckley v. State, 341 Ark. 864 (Ark. 2000) (evidence during sentencing remains subject to evidentiary rules)
- Melendez-Diaz v. Massachusetts, 557 U.S. 305 (U.S. 2009) (testimonial evidence requirements; confrontation in testing context)
- Crawford v. Washington, 541 U.S. 36 (U.S. 2004) (Confrontation Clause; cross-examination core right)
- Hill v. State, 318 Ark. 408 (Ark. 1994) (sentencing is a trial in itself; evidence may be admitted)
- United States v. Brown, 430 F.3d 942 (8th Cir. 2005) (sentencing evidence and confrontation considerations)
- Chau v. United States, 426 F.3d 1318 (11th Cir. 2005) (Crawford does not extend to sentencing context)
- State v. Colwell, 715 N.W.2d 768 (Iowa App. 2006) (records custodian testimony and confrontation considerations)