Fells v. State
207 S.W.3d 498, 362 Ark. 77 (2005)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A rape victim's HIV-positive status is protected under Arkansas’s rape-shield statute and may only be admitted if proper procedures are followed and its probative value outweighs its prejudicial effect. Furthermore, evidence of a defendant's prior bad acts, such as another alleged rape, is admissible under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b) to show intent, motive, or plan if it has independent relevance beyond merely proving bad character.
Facts:
- On February 3, 2002, Super Bowl Sunday, S.H. was standing at the entrance to the Shorter Gardens housing project when Korey Fells drove up and beckoned her to his car.
- Fells and S.H. conversed for about twenty to thirty minutes, during which S.H. mentioned she was hungry, and Fells offered to take her to a gas station for food, complimenting her appearance and portraying himself as trustworthy.
- While driving, Fells asked S.H. if she wanted to watch the Super Bowl on his car's television and continue discussing her problems, to which she agreed.
- S.H. confided in Fells that she was pregnant, had experienced complications earlier that day, had warrants out for her arrest, and had few friends and nowhere to go.
- Fells drove several miles to an unfamiliar area, parked his car, and he and S.H. moved to the backseat to watch the game.
- Fells began to grope S.H., and when she protested, he threatened to abandon her to find her own way home.
- Fearing for her life and the life of her unborn child, S.H. submitted to Fells.
- Shortly after, police officers approached the vehicle; Fells initially claimed everything was fine, but S.H. informed the officers she had been raped, prompting Fells to reveal her name and outstanding warrants.
Procedural Posture:
- The State filed a motion in limine to prevent Korey Fells from questioning S.H. regarding her HIV-positive status, which the Pulaski County Circuit Court granted.
- Korey Fells moved to exclude R.B.'s testimony about an earlier alleged rape, but the Pulaski County Circuit Court determined it was admissible under Rule 404(b).
- The Pulaski County Circuit Court, a trial court, convicted Korey Fells of the rape of S.H. and sentenced him to eighteen years.
- Korey Fells appealed his conviction to the Arkansas Court of Appeals.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court, reversed Fells’s conviction.
- The State, as the appellant, filed a petition for review to the Arkansas Supreme Court, with Fells as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does Arkansas’s rape-shield statute protect a victim's HIV status, thereby requiring compliance with its procedural requirements for admission, and is evidence of a defendant's prior alleged rape admissible under Rule 404(b) to show intent, motive, or plan?
Opinions:
Majority - Betty C. Dickey
Yes, Arkansas’s rape-shield statute protects a victim's HIV status and requires compliance with its procedural requirements for admission, and yes, evidence of a defendant's prior alleged rape is admissible under Rule 404(b) to show intent, motive, or plan. The trial court correctly excluded the attempt to cross-examine R.B. with a police case summary because it constituted inadmissible hearsay under Ark. R. Evid. 801(d)(1); it was a statement made by a detective, not R.B., and was not given under oath subject to perjury. The court holds that a rape victim’s HIV-positive status is protected under Arkansas’s rape-shield statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-42-101. Although HIV can be contracted by various means, the public generally views it as a sexually transmitted disease, and presenting such evidence to a jury would be tantamount to evidence of prior sexual behavior, which the statute aims to shield victims from. Fells failed to comply with the required procedures of the rape-shield statute, such as filing a written motion and allowing the court to hold a hearing to balance its probative value against its prejudicial effect, thus its exclusion was proper. Finally, R.B.’s testimony about an earlier alleged rape by Fells was admissible under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) as evidence of Fells's intent, motive, or plan, not merely to show character. The similarities between the incidents—Fells targeting vulnerable women in low-income areas, luring them with false pretenses of help or friendship, and using their vulnerabilities to threaten them into submission—demonstrated independent relevance beyond merely painting Fells as a bad person. The court affirmed the trial court's decision and reversed the court of appeals.
Dissenting - Jim Hannah, Chief Justice
No, a person’s HIV status does not constitute prohibited evidence of specific instances of a rape victim’s prior sexual conduct under Arkansas’s rape-shield statute, and the majority's interpretation of Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) is overly broad. Chief Justice Hannah argues that being HIV-positive is not a 'specific instance of sexual conduct' as defined by the rape-shield statute, which enumerates specific acts like deviate sexual activity, sexual contact, or sexual intercourse. He contends that the majority improperly expands the statute's scope by equating HIV status with 'prior sexual behavior' based on public perception, rather than strictly adhering to the statutory language and precedent. Such evidence should instead be analyzed under Ark. R. Evid. 401 (relevance) and 403 (probative vs. prejudicial). The exclusion of this evidence, which Fells argued was relevant to show S.H.’s motive to falsely accuse him of rape to avoid prosecution for exposing someone to HIV, may violate Fells's federal constitutional right to present a complete defense. Furthermore, he believes the admission of R.B.'s testimony under Rule 404(b) for 'motive, intent, or plan' improperly allowed character evidence, as the similarities described by the majority merely brand Fells as a 'sexual predator' rather than shedding light on his specific intent for the charged rape. Citing Alford v. State, he argues that if Fells committed the acts, his intent was not genuinely in doubt, making the prior bad act evidence merely prejudicial character evidence.
Dissenting - Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice
No, S.H.’s HIV status was not evidence of any specific instance of prior sexual conduct subject to Arkansas’s rape-shield statute. Justice Imber joins Chief Justice Hannah's dissent regarding the interpretation of Arkansas's rape-shield statute and the exclusion of evidence related to the victim's HIV status. She explicitly agrees that the HIV status should not be considered 'prior sexual conduct' as defined by the statute.
Analysis:
This case significantly broadens the scope of Arkansas’s rape-shield statute by including a victim's HIV status, even if not directly proven to be sexually transmitted, under its protection. This ruling aims to further shield victims from humiliation but could impact a defendant's ability to present a full defense if not meticulously handled through the statute's procedural requirements. Concurrently, the decision reaffirms the broad applicability of Rule 404(b) for admitting prior bad acts to show 'intent, motive, or plan,' particularly where a consistent pattern of predatory behavior can be established, potentially making it easier for prosecutors to introduce such evidence in future cases despite defense arguments of it being character evidence.
