Brown v. State, 374 Ark. 341

288 S.W.3d 226 (2008) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · October 2, 2008 · No. CR 07-1178

Summary

The Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed the Court of Appeals' reversal of Alfred Lavorice Brown's conviction for second-degree sexual assault. The court held that the victim's testimony provided substantial evidence supporting the conviction and that Brown failed to demonstrate prejudice from the denial of a continuance to secure an unavailable witness. The court affirmed the circuit court's judgment and reversed the Court of Appeals' decision.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Donald L. Corbin
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
October 2, 2008
Docket number
CR 07-1178
Procedural posture
The State petitioned the Supreme Court of Arkansas to review the Arkansas Court of Appeals' decision reversing Brown's conviction and remanding for a new trial. The Supreme Court granted review, reviewed the case as though originally filed there, and affirmed the conviction.
Standard of review
Denial of a directed-verdict motion is reviewed as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, asking whether substantial evidence supports the verdict. Denial of a continuance is reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and the appellant must also demonstrate prejudice amounting to a denial of justice.
Precedential value
Published Arkansas Supreme Court opinion; precedential.
Parties
Alfred Lavorice Brown v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
reversed

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedureevidencestandard of reviewpreservation of error

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureappellate procedureevidence

Questions Presented

  1. Whether substantial evidence supported Brown's conviction for second-degree sexual assault.
  2. Whether the circuit court abused its discretion and prejudiced Brown by denying his motion for a continuance to secure an unavailable defense witness.

Holdings

  1. The victim's testimony that Brown touched her buttocks and placed his private part in her behind constituted substantial evidence supporting the conviction, despite inconsistencies in her testimony and the absence of corroborating scientific evidence.
  2. The denial of the continuance was not reversible error because, even assuming the circuit court should have granted the request, Brown failed to show prejudice amounting to a denial of justice; the proposed testimony was cumulative of other evidence presented at trial.

Key quotations

The victim's testimony was substantial evidence to support the jury's finding of guilt. (230)
We therefore conclude that, because the jury had before it evidence that A.B. previously made claims of abuse that no one believed, including Investigator Paladino, Appellant was not prejudiced by the trial court's denial of his motion for continuance. (233)

Factual background

Brown was charged with four sexual offenses involving two children, including his biological daughter, A.B., who was under fourteen at the time of the alleged offenses. The jury acquitted Brown of three rape charges but convicted him of second-degree sexual assault based principally on A.B.'s testimony that Brown touched her buttocks and placed his penis in or near her private parts. Brown sought a continuance to secure the testimony of Investigator Lenore Paladino, who had investigated an earlier abuse allegation by A.B. and deemed it unsubstantiated, but the circuit court denied the request.

Procedural history

Brown was convicted in Pulaski County Circuit Court of second-degree sexual assault and sentenced as a habitual offender to 276 months' imprisonment. The Arkansas Court of Appeals held that the evidence was sufficient but that the circuit court erred in denying Brown's motion for a continuance, and it reversed and remanded for a new trial. On the State's petition for review, the Supreme Court of Arkansas found no error, reversed the court of appeals, and affirmed the circuit court judgment.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…