Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Campbell v. State

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division II

February 24, 2016

DONALD COREY CAMPBELL, APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS, APPELLEE

          APPEAL FROM THE HOT SPRING COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. NO. 30CR-2013-009. HONORABLE CHRIS E WILLIAMS, JUDGE.

         For DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT: KENT GREGORY HOLT.

         For APPELLEE: ATTORNEY GENERAL.

         For APPELLANT: SCOTT ALLEN SCHOLL.

         PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge. KINARD and HIXSON, JJ., agree.

          OPINION

         

Page 280

          PHILLIP T. WHITEAKER, Judge.

         Donald 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.

         Campbell 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.

         Campbell 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.

Page 281

          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.

         On 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 and ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.