FROM THE HOT SPRING COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. NO. 30CR-2013-009.
HONORABLE CHRIS E WILLIAMS, JUDGE.
DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: KENT GREGORY HOLT.
APPELLEE: ATTORNEY GENERAL.
APPELLANT: SCOTT ALLEN SCHOLL.
T. WHITEAKER, Judge. KINARD and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge.
Corey Campbell appeals his Hot Spring County Circuit Court
conviction of rape, for which he was sentenced to forty years
in the Arkansas Department of Correction. We affirm.
raises two points for appeal: he contends that he was
unfairly prejudiced by the introduction of prior bad acts and
by the State referring to the child as the "
victim" at trial. For purposes of this opinion, we will
review these points in reverse order.
was charged with raping S.B., a minor child under the age of
fourteen. He argues that the circuit court erred in allowing
the State to refer to S.B. as a victim at trial. The court
denied Campbell's motion in limine in this respect,
indicating that Campbell would be allowed to argue his
complaint regarding the " victim" language with the
jury, and, if the context of the word changed during trial,
it would entertain further objections. Thus, Campbell was
perfectly free at trial to argue to the jury that it was the
State's burden to prove that S.B. was not only a "
victim," but was " his victim." Campbell was
also free to raise another objection to the State's use
of the term if he felt the State was abusing the latitude
granted by the court; however, he did not pursue any further
objections to that term when it was used at trial. From our
review of the record, it does not appear that the State used
the phrase in any way to " subtly implant" into the
jurors' minds that the allegations of abuse were true as
asserted by Campbell. Moreover, the cases cited by Campbell
do not stand for the proposition that the State may not refer
to the alleged victim as a victim at trial. As such, he has
failed to support his argument with any persuasive authority.
We will not consider an issue if the appellant has failed to
cite to any convincing legal authority in support of his
argument. Barker v. State, 2010 Ark. 354, at 6, 373
S.W.3d 865, 869.
Campbell also challenges the introduction of prior bad acts,
arguing that the trial court committed reversible error in
allowing the introduction of this evidence. To adequately
address this argument, we must consider the evidence
surrounding the rape of S.B., as well as the evidence of the
prior bad acts.
December 6, 2012, S.B. was a guest in Campbell's home.
S.B.'s mother was scheduled to marry Campbell's
stepson, Markus Dill, the next day. At approximately 5:30 or
6:00 in the morning, S.B. woke up her mother and Dill. She
was hysterical and shaking. She told them that "
Pawpaw" (Campbell) was kissing and touching her. S.B.
indicated that Campbell had kissed her face and touched her
private area, possibly penetrating her, with his hands. The
underwear S.B. had been wearing at bedtime was missing.
S.B.'s mother called off the wedding and took S.B. to the
hospital in Malvern to be examined. After she was interviewed
by the police, S.B. was sent to Little Rock to have a rape
kit performed. The examination revealed some mild irritation