Brehm v. State
| Decision Date | 30 September 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. CR-19-905,CR-19-905 |
| Parties | Joseph Anthony BREHM, Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
Hancock Law Firm, Little Rock, by: Alex R. Burgos, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Michael L. Yarbrough, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Joseph Anthony Brehm appeals his conviction by a Faulkner County Circuit Court jury of one count of second-degree sexual assault. On appeal, he argues that the State failed to provide sufficient evidence that his contact with the victim, M.H. (DOB 08/24/11), was for the purpose of sexual gratification. We affirm.
On August 21, 2019, the jury trial took place. At the trial, Brandy Danielle Jameson, M.H.'s mother, testified that she dated Brehm from February to August 2017. During that time, she lived in Vilonia with her three sons, who ranged in age from ten to seventeen, and M.H., who was in kindergarten. Brandy explained that while she and Brehm were dating, they called him "Leroy." She testified that Brehm stayed overnight most of the time, and he slept in her room. M.H. had her own room, and Brandy and M.H. shared the bathroom that had a bathtub. Brandy testified that in late August 2017, she received a phone call from the Arkansas State Police at the Child Advocacy Center and learned that Brehm "had done something to my daughter." When Brandy confronted Brehm, he did not react but told Brandy, "Just so you know, she would try to look under the blanket at him" and that M.H. had "called him into the bathroom to ask him to blow up a blue balloon." Brandy testified that during their relationship, she never asked Brehm to bathe M.H., and she stated that "there was not ever a time where he should have been in the bathroom with M.H." Brehm did not have a "caretaking role" regarding M.H. Brandy explained that August 29, 2017, was the first time she had been away from home. Her father had surgery that day, and she was at the hospital with him until 11:00 p.m. or midnight. M.H. was asleep when she returned home.
Julianna Yateman, the school counselor at Vilonia Primary School, testified that in late August 2017, M.H. was very emotional, upset, and crying in class, and Yateman brought the child into her office. Once M.H. calmed down, she told Yateman that "Leroy" had done something to her. Yateman stated that M.H. was upset and angry and "vocal about what happened." M.H. explained to her that something had happened while she had been sleeping. She stated that "Leroy" had been "digging in her pants," and she clarified that her pants were on her at the time. Yateman called the child-maltreatment hotline.
M.H. was seven years old when she testified at the trial. M.H. explained she had forgotten what grade she was in when "Leroy" lived with them but that they had lived together with her mom and brothers. M.H. stated there was one bathtub in that house and that she had been able to take a bath by herself when she lived there, and she did not share a bedroom with anyone. Pointing to a picture of a girl on which she had circled the vaginal area, she identified the "wrong spot" and began crying and stated that "someone has touched me on my wrong spot." After a short recess, M.H. stated, On cross-examination, M.H. stated that "Leroy" was the only man that had lived with their family. She testified that "Leroy" never helped her with her clothes or bath, and no one but her mother helped her.
M.H.'s brother, B.C., testified that Brehm had lived with their family in late August 2017 when he was seventeen years old. B.C. testified that the day his mother was at the hospital, he saw Brehm standing in the doorway of the bathroom while M.H. was taking a bath and that Brehm had never been responsible for helping M.H. in the bath or helping her get dressed. B.C. asked Brehm was he was doing, and Brehm told B.C. he was helping M.H. clean her toys. B.C. told Brehm to leave the bathroom, and he did. B.C. shut the bathroom door, and he did not notice anything unusual about M.H. the next couple of days. M.H. began staying in B.C.'s room after that and "didn't trust being in her room alone."
Brehm moved for a directed verdict, asserting that though there was testimony that Brehm had touched M.H.'s genitalia, there was no evidence of sexual gratification, and other explanations such as helping the child bathe or get dressed could explain the touching. The court denied the motion. No further evidence was presented, and the jury found...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Dejohn v. State
...Supreme Court has construed the words in accordance with their reasonable and commonly accepted meanings. Brehm v. State , 2020 Ark. App. 442, at 5, 608 S.W.3d 166, 168. Appellate courts have made clear that it is not necessary for the State to provide direct proof that an act is done for s......