Woodall v. State
2011 Ark. 22
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Appellant Brian Joseph Woodall appeals a Lonoke County Circuit Court rape conviction and 25-year sentence.
- Charging information alleges rape of E.B., a person under 14, between January 1, 2001 and February 22, 2009.
- Appellant moved to admit evidence of victim’s prior sexual conduct to rebut physical findings.
- Trial court held an in camera hearing and denied the motion to admit prior sexual conduct.
- At trial, witnesses proffered by appellant were unable to establish a clearly occurred prior act.
- Appellant renewed the motion; court again denied the motion.
- Dr. Jones testified about a hymenal/vaginal injury consistent with adult penetration, influencing the relevance of prior conduct issues.
- Appellant argues the rape-shield statute and the trial court’s rulings affected his defense and cross-examination rights, and that a mistrial should have been granted due to voir dire remarks.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Rape-shield admissibility of victim’s prior sexual conduct | Appellant argues prior acts are relevant to alternative sources for the injury | State argues evidence not proven to have clearly occurred; Townsend factors apply | Exclusion affirmed; Townsend factors not satisfied; no abuse of discretion |
| Constitutional right to cross-examine undeveloped due to rape-shield ruling | Cross-examination of victim was hindered by exclusion | Constitutional rights violated; not preserved for review | Issue not preserved; not reviewed on the merits |
| Mistrial due to venire member comment during voir dire | Comment shows potential prejudice needing mistrial | Curative instruction and individual voir dire sufficient | Court did not abuse discretion; mistrial denied; curative instruction sufficient |
Key Cases Cited
- Townsend v. State, 366 Ark. 152 (2006) (five-factor test for admissibility of a child victim’s prior sexual conduct (alternative source))
- Joyner v. State, 2009 Ark. 168 (2009) (reaffirmed Townsend framework when prior act not clearly occurred)
- Drymon v. State, 316 Ark. 799 (1994) (discretion to allow testimony; in camera proceedings context)
- Eastin v. State, 370 Ark. 10 (2007) (need for ruling on issues; lack of preservation otherwise)
- MacKool v. State, 365 Ark. 416 (2006) (curative instructions suffice where voir dire prejudice is curable)
- Bond v. State, 374 Ark. 332 (2008) (rape-shield statute admissibility standard; relevance balancing)