Darrell G. Spencer v. State of Arkansas

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas affirmed Darrell G. Spencer's conviction and life sentence for the rape of his five-year-old stepson. The court held that Spencer failed to preserve his sufficiency-of-the-evidence challenge because his directed-verdict motions lacked specificity, and it upheld the admission of evidence concerning prior sexual acts under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b). The court also found no abuse of discretion in refusing to strike a prospective juror for cause and concluded that any error concerning one witness's testimony was harmless.

Holdings

1. Spencer waived appellate review of the sufficiency of the evidence because his directed-verdict motions merely asserted that the evidence was insufficient and did not identify the specific deficiency.
2. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the testimony of Spencer's daughter because it was independently relevant to show Spencer's proclivity toward incestuous sexual contact with children and its probative value was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
3. Even assuming the trial court erred by admitting the cousin's testimony, the error was harmless because the evidence of Spencer's guilt was overwhelming.
4. The trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to strike Sarah Whitworth for cause because she ultimately stated that she could be fair, impartial, and decide the case solely on the evidence, and Spencer did not demonstrate prejudice from her seating.

Questions Presented

1. Whether Spencer preserved a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence by making a specific directed-verdict motion under Ark. R. Crim. P. 33.1.
2. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by admitting testimony concerning Spencer's prior sexual acts under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b), including whether the cousin's testimony was too remote or prejudicial.
3. Whether the trial court abused its discretion by refusing to strike prospective juror Sarah Whitworth for cause.
4. Whether any error in admitting the cousin's testimony was harmless in light of the overwhelming evidence of guilt.

Disposition

affirmed