Brown v. State, CR78-149
| Decision Date | 29 January 1979 |
| Docket Number | No. CR78-149,No. 1,CR78-149,1 |
| Parties | Johnny Charles BROWN, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
John W. Achor, Public Defender, Little Rock, for appellant.
Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen. by Jesse L. Kearney, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Prior to the rape trial of Johnny Charles Brown, the State filed a motion in limine, seeking to prohibit any mention of prior sexual conduct between the prosecuting witness and Brown. From the trial court's interlocutory ruling that the prior sexual contact between appellant and the prosecutrix was not relevant to Brown's defense of consent, Brown brings this appeal pursuant to Ark.Stat.Ann. § 41-1810.2(c) (Repl.1977).
The record reflects that the prosecutrix had known Brown for 16 years but had not seen him in three years. About one week prior to the alleged rape she had met Brown at the employment office and had asked him to stop by her apartment some time. Brown did just that and found the prosecutrix scantily clad in a nightgown during the middle of the day. It was at this time that the alleged rape occurred. On cross-examination at the pre-trial hearing, the prosecutrix testified:
"Q. How long were you all boyfriend and girlfriend?
A. Boyfriend and girlfriend: We went to bed. We were never it was never nothing serious.
The Uniform Rules of Evidence Rule 401 provides:
" 'Relevant evidence' means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence."
The proffered evidence of the prior relationship of the parties as described by the prosecutrix certainly tends to make the appellant's defense of consent more probable in view of the invitation from the prosecutrix and her mode of dress at the time she let him into her abode. Consequently, we conclude that the trial court erred in excluding the testimony.
Reversed and remanded.
We agree: HARRIS, C. J., and GEORGE ROSE SMITH and PURTLE, JJ.
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Testerman v. State, 382
...5 (1979) (evidence that the parties had had prior relations over a period of eighteen months held to be admissible); Brown v. State, 264 Ark. 944, 581 S.W.2d 549 (1979) (evidence that the parties had had prior relations once or twice maybe three years ago held to be admissible); Annot., Rap......
-
State v. Sheard, CR
...evidence prior sexual conduct between a defendant and an alleged rape victim when consent is an issue. That case (and Brown v. State, 264 Ark. 944, 581 S.W.2d 549 (1979), cited therein) differs substantially from the one before us now--there, group sex involving multiple parties was not inv......
-
Terrell v. State, CA
...alleged rape and the other events which occurred on that night. Kemp v. State, 270 Ark. 835, 606 S.W.2d 573 (1980); Brown v. State, 264 Ark. 944, 581 S.W.2d 549 (1979). However, it must be kept in mind that the purpose of the Rape Shield Statute is to limit evidence of the victim's past sex......
-
Kemp v. State
...prior sexual conduct is relevant and "its probative value outweighs its inflammatory or prejudicial nature." In Brown v. State, 264 Ark. 944, 581 S.W.2d 549 (1979), we reversed the trial court and held the defendant's testimony admissible when he testified that he and the prosecuting witnes......