Holliday v. State
| Decision Date | 27 October 2010 |
| Docket Number | No. CACR09-764,CACR09-764 |
| Citation | 2010 Ark. App. 705 |
| Parties | JAMES ARLEY HOLLIDAY, APPELLANT v. STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
AFFIRMED
Appellant was convicted of the rape and sexual assault of his granddaughter. On appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in refusing to allow him to introduce specific testimony regarding the victim's truthfulness, and in finding that he was not indigent and therefore not entitled to a court-appointed attorney on appeal. We affirm.
The victim, who was a teenager at the time of trial, testified that she and her sister were taken in by their grandparents when she was six years old because of instabilities in her mother's life. Because the children were at first afraid in their new surroundings, they slept with their grandparents for a time—she with her grandfather, her sister with her grandmother, each in separate rooms. The victim stated that, during that time, her grandfather touched her inappropriately on her legs and thighs, rolled her over, had her kiss his penis through his underwear, and ultimately had vaginal intercourse with her. Her grandfather told her that thiswas to be their secret. After several months, the girls began sleeping together in their own room and there was no further abuse.
The memory of the abuse revived when the victim was in high school and she reported it to a staff member at her high school. The victim admitted that she recanted her story more than once when asked by investigators to repeat it in the presence of her grandfather and that, although she had frequently lied in the past, she was now telling the truth.
We first address appellant's argument that the trial court erred in excluding certain testimonial evidence. He argues that the evidence was relevant to the issues of fabrication and bias regarding the victim's truthfulness. Two items of evidence were excluded. One was testimony from the victim's sister; it concerned something that the victim told her and presumably went to the victim's truthfulness. The other was testimony from the victim's grandmother regarding some of the problems experienced by the victim in her youth, offered in an attempt to elicit reasons why the victim would lie.1
We cannot address these issues on the merits because the substance of the expected testimony is not apparent from the context and there was no proffer. Where evidence is excluded by the circuit court, the party challenging that decision must make a proffer of the excluded evidence at trial so that this court can review the decision, unless the substance ofthe evidence is apparent from the context. Arnett v. State, 353 Ark. 165, 122 S.W.3d 484 (2003). Here, no proffer was made, and the substance of the expected testimony is not apparent; therefore, we cannot say whether an error occurred or whether any such error was prejudicial.
Next, appellant argues that the trial court erred in finding that he...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Holliday v. State
...degree and rape. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 720 months' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Holliday v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 705. The court of appeals's mandate was issued on November 16, 2010. On August 22, 2012, approximately twenty-one months after the ma......
-
Holliday v. Hobbs
...degree and rape. He was sentenced to an aggregate term of 720 months' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed. Holliday v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 705. In 2013, appellant, who is incarcerated at a unit of the Arkansas Department of Correction located in Lincoln County, filed a pr......
-
Holliday v. Kelley
...not be issued. DATED this 16th day of July, 2015. /s/_________ JOE J. VOLPE UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE 1. Holliday v. Arkansas, 2010 Ark. App. 705, at 1[hereinafter Holliday I]. 2. Id. 3. Doc. No. 9. 4. Holliday v. Arkansas, 2013 Ark. 47, at 1 [hereinafter Holliday II]. 5. Id. 6. Ark. R......
-
Holliday v. Kelley
...also admitted that she had recanted her story more than once, and that she had frequently lied in the past. See Holliday v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 705 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). After seeking relief in the Arkansas state courts, Holliday brought this section 2254 petition. In his petition, he ass......