558 S.W.3d 907
Ark. Ct. App.2018Background
- In 2014 Brandon Wallace lived with his girlfriend Becky and her children, including alleged victim A.M., who was 13 at the time. Wallace was charged with rape and second-degree sexual assault; acquitted of rape but convicted of second-degree sexual assault and sentenced to 15 years.
- The State sought to admit testimony that after allegations emerged Wallace bought a gun, told Becky he would kill himself, and later asked police to shoot him; the trial court ruled that testimony admissible under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b).
- A.M. testified to multiple incidents of inappropriate touching between September and November 2014 and said Wallace threatened to kill her and her family if she told. The last incident led to police contact on November 6, 2014; Wallace was arrested November 11, 2014.
- Officer testimony and Becky’s testimony described Wallace’s statements and suicidal conduct (pointing a cell phone light at officers and saying “shoot me,” and earlier holding a gun and saying he would kill himself).
- Wallace proposed an 8‑paragraph jury instruction on evidence of consciousness of guilt that included language cautioning the jury that contemplation of suicide can stem from reasons other than guilt; the trial court gave only the first four paragraphs (the AMI model language plus a caution that suicide does not create a presumption of guilt).
- Wallace appealed, arguing the court erred by refusing the full instruction because the omitted paragraphs would have informed the jury that suicidal conduct could indicate innocence or other nonculpable motivations.
Issues
| Issue | Wallace's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the trial court erred in refusing Wallace’s full 8‑paragraph consciousness‑of‑guilt instruction | The court should have given the full instruction explaining that suicidal conduct can be motivated by factors other than guilt (including innocence), so omission was reversible error | The model AMI instruction (first three paragraphs) plus the added caution that suicide does not create a presumption of guilt was sufficient; other motivations can be argued in closing | No error; trial court did not abuse its discretion in giving the abbreviated, model‑based instruction |
Key Cases Cited
- Dimas‑Martinez v. State, 385 S.W.3d 238 (2011) (evidence of other crimes/wrongs reflecting consciousness of guilt is independently relevant under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b))
- Strong v. State, 277 S.W.3d 159 (2008) (a defendant’s attempt to commit suicide may be admissible to prove consciousness of guilt)
- Blaney v. State, 657 S.W.2d 531 (1983) (nonmodel jury instructions given only when AMCI does not accurately state the law or lacks the subject)
- Branstetter v. State, 57 S.W.3d 105 (2001) (refusal of a jury instruction constitutes reversible error only if omission infects the entire trial and violates due process)
Affirmed.