Brown v. State

2015 Ark. 16 (2015) · Supreme Court of Arkansas · January 22, 2015 · No. CR-14-472

Summary

The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed Marlin Brown’s convictions for rape, aggravated robbery, and kidnapping. The court held that Brown’s ex post facto argument was not preserved for appellate review because he did not raise it below, and rejected his equal-protection challenge to Arkansas’s elimination of the statute of limitations when DNA evidence identifies an alleged perpetrator. The court concluded that DNA evidence is sufficiently different from other evidence to provide a rational basis for the statutory classification.

Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Writing for the Court
Robin F. Wynne
Jurisdiction
Arkansas
Decision date
January 22, 2015
Docket number
CR-14-472
Procedural posture
Marlin Brown appealed his convictions for three counts of rape, three counts of aggravated robbery, and one count of Class B felony kidnapping, challenging the constitutionality of Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-1-109(b)(1)(B) and (j) under the Equal Protection Clause and asserting an ex post facto violation.
Standard of review
The court reviewed constitutional and statutory-interpretation issues de novo. Statutes receive a strong presumption of constitutionality and are invalidated only upon a clear incompatibility with the constitution. The equal-protection classification was reviewed under rational-basis scrutiny.
Precedential value
Published opinion of the Supreme Court of Arkansas; precedential.
Parties
Marlin Brown v. State of Arkansas
Disposition
affirmed

Topics

criminal procedureappellate procedurepreservation of errorequal protectionstatutory interpretation

Practice areas

criminal lawcriminal procedureconstitutional lawappellate procedure

Questions Presented

  1. Whether Brown's ex post facto challenge to prosecution for the aggravated-robbery and kidnapping charges could be considered on appeal despite his failure to raise the argument in the circuit court.
  2. Whether Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-1-109(b)(1)(B) and (j), which eliminate or extend the statute of limitations when DNA evidence identifies or implicates a defendant, violate the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

Holdings

  1. The court would not address Brown's ex post facto argument because he failed to raise it in the circuit court, and the court declined to create a fifth exception to Arkansas's contemporaneous-objection rule.
  2. Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-1-109(b)(1)(B) and (j) do not violate the Equal Protection Clause because criminal defendants whose identities are established or implicated by DNA evidence and defendants identified by other evidence may be treated differently based on a rational distinction.

Key quotations

DNA evidence, unlike witnesses’ memories or other types of evidence, does not degrade over time. (8)
Because DNA is different than other types of evidence, the General Assembly had a rational basis for treating it differently and eliminating the statute of limitations when DNA can provide the identity of an alleged perpetrator—even long after the crime has been committed. (8)

Factual background

The charged offenses arose from three home-invasion incidents on January 2, January 25, and January 30, 2001, in which an armed man raped victims and took money or payment cards. Biological evidence collected during the investigation was entered into the state DNA database in February 2001 and matched Brown's DNA profile through the national database in August 2010. The State filed charges in August 2011, after the ordinary six-year limitations period for the relevant Class Y felonies had expired.

Procedural history

The Pulaski County Circuit Court denied Brown's motions to dismiss based on the statute of limitations, due process, and equal protection, and denied his motion to declare section 5-1-109 unconstitutional. After a jury trial, Brown was convicted and sentenced to an aggregate 495 years' imprisonment. The Supreme Court of Arkansas held that the ex post facto argument was not preserved and rejected the equal-protection challenge, affirming the convictions.

Court Document

Open PDF
Loading document…