{
  "id": 6137306,
  "name": "Tilton B. RHODES, Sr. v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Rhodes v. State",
  "decision_date": "2008-04-02",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 07-328",
  "first_page": "73",
  "last_page": "75",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "102 Ark. App. 73"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "281 S.W.3d 758"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-401",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-97-103",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "365 Ark. 416",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        3286104
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 2006,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/365/0416-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "324 Ark. 60",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        9158336
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/324/0060-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "360 Ark. 5",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        5461796
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 2004,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/360/0005-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 337,
    "char_count": 4268,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.77,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 6.071662824262825e-08,
      "percentile": 0.3750618279289642
    },
    "sha256": "7b6457236b18fda24c279bc84fa4509fffc3fd6d9c9f0a705ac15dcd01c53040",
    "simhash": "1:5ff4130244f753a1",
    "word_count": 706
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T21:30:35.503442+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Bird and Griffen, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Tilton B. RHODES, Sr. v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge.\nAppellant, a man in Judge. and sexual assault of a twelve-year-old girl. On appeal, he asserts that the trial judge erred in denying his motion for a mistrial. We affirm.\nDuring appellant\u2019s jury trial, the victim testified that she was raped and sexually assaulted by appellant at her home when appellant was her mother\u2019s live-in boyfriend. Although appellant was being tried only for crimes committed against the twelve-year-old victim, another girl testified without objection that she, too, was raped by appellant under similar circumstances when she was fifteen years old. The jury found appellant guilty of raping and sexually assaulting the victim, and then heard evidence and argument relating to sentencing. During the sentencing phase, the prosecutor addressed the jury and argued that justice required a sentence of at least twenty years, \u201cten for each girl.\u201d Appellant objected and moved for a mistrial on the ground that the present trial was only for his offenses against one victim, not two. The trial court denied a mistrial but gave the following curative instruction to the jury:\nI apologize, ladies and gendemen. There was an objection made as you were leaving the courtroom to the Court about the last comment or argument [the prosecutor] made about asking for a longer sentence because of allegedly two victims. I\u2019m going to instruct you to disregard that argument, and here\u2019s the reason why just so you know where, why I\u2019m sustaining the objection:\nWe\u2019re only having one trial here today, and he should be punished based on that, not because there are two victims in this case. Now, in considering the seriousness of the punishment, you may consider the fact that there\u2019s an allegation that he has committed another offense. Whether or not you find that to be true is a matter for your determination. It\u2019s an appropriate consideration if you should find it to be true, but not because there are two victims is what I\u2019m saying. That\u2019s another trial to be had in this case.\nAfter deliberating, the jury fixed appellant\u2019s sentences at ten years\u2019 imprisonment for rape and ten years\u2019 imprisonment for sexual assault. The trial court ordered that the sentences mn consecutively, as the jury recommended.\nAppellant argues that the prejudicial effect of the prosecutor\u2019s argument was not removed by the trial court\u2019s instruction. We do not agree. Mistrial is an extreme remedy that should be used only when the error is beyond repair and cannot be corrected by any curative relief. Meadows v. State, 360 Ark. 5, 199 S.W.3d 634 (2004). A circuit court\u2019s decision to grant or deny a mistrial will not be disturbed absent a showing of an abuse of discretion. Id. An admonition is the proper remedy where the assertion of prejudice is highly speculative. Wilkins v. State, 324 Ark. 60, 918 S.W.2d 702 (1996).\nAppellant suffered no prejudice that would warrant a mistrial. The fifteen-year-old girl\u2019s testimony that she had also been raped by appellant was admitted in the guilt phase of the trial without objection, and it was clearly admissible during the penalty phase as relevant evidence of appellant\u2019s character. See MacKool v. State, 365 Ark. 416, 231 S.W.3d 676 (2006); Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 16-97-103 (Repl. 2006). Therefore, the prosecutor\u2019s argument did not present the jury with any new allegations or facts, but simply contained an erroneous statement of law regarding the manner in which that evidence could be considered for purposes of sentencing. The trial court\u2019s admonition was even-handed and clear, and we hold that it was sufficient to remove any possible prejudice resulting from the argument.\nAffirmed.\nBird and Griffen, JJ., agree.\nTen years was the minimum permissible penalty for the Class Y felony of rape; appellant could have been sentenced to life imprisonment for that offense. The permissible penalty range for the Class B felony of sexual assault was not less than five years nor more than twenty years. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-401 (Repl. 2006).",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John Mauzy Pittman, Chief Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William M. Howard, Jr., for appellant.",
      "Dustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Tilton B. RHODES, Sr. v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 07-328\n281 S.W.3d 758\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered April 2, 2008\nWilliam M. Howard, Jr., for appellant.\nDustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0073-01",
  "first_page_order": 101,
  "last_page_order": 103
}