Strong v. State

Topics

Practice areas

Questions Presented

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support Strong's two rape convictions and whether his directed-verdict motions were properly denied.
2. Whether the circuit court properly admitted Strong's prior felony-theft conviction for impeachment under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 609.
3. Whether testimony concerning prior sexual conduct with another child was admissible under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b) and the Arkansas pedophile exception.
4. Whether medical testimony concerning findings consistent with sexual abuse was admissible under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 704.
5. Whether a nurse practitioner's testimony concerning child-abuse victims' reporting and coping mechanisms was within her expertise under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 702.
6. Whether evidence of Strong's attempted drug overdoses was relevant and admissible as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt.
7. Whether Strong's pro se arguments were preserved for appellate review and whether the record revealed prejudicial error under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h).

Holdings

1. The circuit court properly denied Strong's directed-verdict motions because substantial evidence supported the two rape convictions. For rape under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-103(a)(4)(A)(i), the State was required to prove that K.M. was under eighteen, that Strong was her guardian, and that he engaged in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with her; forcible compulsion was not required.
2. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion in admitting Strong's 1999 felony-theft conviction to attack his credibility under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 609.
3. The circuit court properly admitted Shavonia Strong's testimony concerning Strong's prior sexual conduct under the Arkansas pedophile exception to Rule 404(b).
4. The circuit court properly permitted the nurse practitioner's testimony concerning physical findings consistent with sexual abuse and penetration.
5. The nurse practitioner's testimony that child-abuse victims may report only recent incidents because of coping mechanisms was within her expertise and was properly admitted.
6. The circuit court did not abuse its discretion by admitting evidence that Strong attempted to overdose on drugs after learning of K.M.'s allegations, because the evidence could be considered as circumstantial evidence of consciousness of guilt.
7. The court declined to reach Strong's seventeen pro se points because they were not properly preserved, were unsupported by adequate argument or authority, or lacked an adverse trial-court ruling.
8. After examining the adverse rulings identified in the no-merit brief and the record under Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(h), the court found no prejudicial error and affirmed.

Key quotations

Factual background

Strong, who acted as K.M.'s guardian and was regarded by her as a father, was convicted of raping K.M. on two occasions when she was fifteen. The incidents involved a motel room on January 10, 2006, and Bertie's apartment on January 13, 2006. DNA evidence linked Strong to semen found on K.M.'s underwear and a sock, and medical testimony described injuries and other findings consistent with sexual abuse. The circuit court also admitted testimony concerning prior sexual conduct with Strong's biological daughter, testimony by a nurse practitioner concerning child-abuse findings and reporting behavior, and evidence of Strong's attempted drug overdoses after learning of the allegations.

Procedural history

A Greene County jury convicted Strong of two counts of rape, and the circuit court imposed consecutive life sentences. An incest charge included in the information was dismissed before trial. After judgment was entered on August 17, 2006, Strong timely appealed. The Supreme Court of Arkansas conducted the required no-merit and Rule 4-3(h) review, granted counsel's motion to withdraw, and affirmed.