White v. State, 370 Ark. 284

Topics

Practice areas

Questions Presented

1. Whether substantial evidence supported the rape conviction, including White's status as T.H.'s guardian.
2. Whether substantial evidence supported the fourth-degree sexual-assault conviction.
3. Whether substantial evidence supported the conviction for exposing another person to HIV.
4. Whether the HIV charge should have been severed from the other charges.
5. Whether HIPAA barred a health-care provider from testifying about White's HIV status.
6. Whether the circuit court erred by denying White's day-of-trial motion for a continuance to locate a school counselor.
7. Whether a statement in transcripts of White's jail telephone calls should have been redacted under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b).
8. Whether testimony that White requested oral sex was inadmissible because the charged conduct involved vaginal-penile intercourse.
9. Whether evidence of other sexual acts between White and T.H. was inadmissible under Rule 404(b).
10. Whether the circuit court erred by failing to give a limiting instruction concerning the prior-sexual-conduct evidence.
11. Whether the record contained prejudicial error warranting reversal under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h).

Holdings

1. Substantial evidence supported White's rape conviction because the evidence established that he had sexual intercourse with fifteen-year-old T.H. while standing in the position of her guardian under the criminal code.
2. Substantial evidence supported the fourth-degree sexual-assault conviction.
3. Substantial evidence supported the conviction for exposing another person to HIV.
4. The victims' testimony was sufficient despite White's challenges to its credibility, inconsistencies, and contradictions.
5. The circuit court properly denied severance of the HIV-exposure charge.
6. HIPAA did not bar the nurse practitioner's testimony about White's HIV status because federal law permits disclosure for law-enforcement purposes and Arkansas law authorized the subpoena and limited use of the information to court enforcement of the HIV statute.
7. The circuit court properly denied White's motion for a continuance to locate the school counselor.
8. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to redact White's statement because the statement did not create a Rule 404(b) issue or reveal a prior similar crime.
9. The testimony that White requested oral sex was admissible because it formed an inseparable part of the events surrounding the charged sexual intercourse.
10. Evidence of White's other similar sexual acts with T.H. was admissible.
11. White could not obtain reversal based on the absence of a Rule 404(b) limiting instruction because he did not request the instruction at trial.

Key quotations

Factual background

White lived with T.H.'s mother and had acted as a parental figure and guardian to T.H., who was fifteen years old. The evidence showed that White engaged in repeated sexual intercourse with T.H. and had sexual intercourse with T.H.'s fifteen-year-old friend, K.J., after arranging for K.J. to come to the home. White knew that he was HIV-positive and did not inform K.J. before the sexual penetration. The victims also testified that White threatened to kill them and their families if they disclosed the conduct.

Procedural history

White was convicted by a jury and sentenced to life imprisonment plus 432 months. The circuit court denied his motions for directed verdict, severance, continuance, evidentiary exclusions, and redaction. On appeal, the Supreme Court of Arkansas considered the issues identified in counsel's no-merit brief and the issues raised by White pro se, and affirmed.