{ "id": 6066108, "name": "Steven Ralph TEATER v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Teater v. State", "decision_date": "2009-01-21", "docket_number": "CA CR 08-641", "first_page": "268", "last_page": "273", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "104 Ark. App. 268" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "290 S.W.3d 623" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "89 Ark. App. 215", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140020 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/89/0215-01" ] }, { "cite": "85 Ark. App. 326", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6140523 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/85/0326-01" ] }, { "cite": "304 Ark. 393", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1881001 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1991, "pin_cites": [ { "parenthetical": "stating that abuse of discretion is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the trial court's decision, but establishes that the trial court's decision was arbitrary and groundless" }, { "parenthetical": "stating that abuse of discretion is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the trial court's decision, but establishes that the trial court's decision was arbitrary and groundless" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/304/0393-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-312", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 2006, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "(a)" } ], "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "95 Ark. App. 114", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138452 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2006, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/95/0114-01" ] }, { "cite": "356 Ark. 516", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 5369181 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2004, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/356/0516-01" ] }, { "cite": "362 Ark. 279", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 3559665 ], "weight": 2, "year": 2005, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/362/0279-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 440, "char_count": 8337, "ocr_confidence": 0.783, "pagerank": { "raw": 4.03580807328026e-08, "percentile": 0.1729708952143542 }, "sha256": "75da24df8d57a0ef7f329a675e29f08040d1fa05792eca05ef74d9368d93a1e4", "simhash": "1:05b0f23676058cb4", "word_count": 1364 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:37:35.435157+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Hart and Robbins, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Steven Ralph TEATER v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Karen R. Baker, Judge.\nAppellant Steven Ralph Teater was convicted by a jury in Ouachita County Circuit Court of second-degree murder in the death of his wife and attempted second-degree murder of Rod McKinney. He was sentenced to 360 months\u2019 imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in granting the State\u2019s motion in limine excluding from evidence fifteen text messages found in the cellular phone of his deceased wife and erred in precluding appellant from cross-examining McKinney about the text messages. We affirm appellant\u2019s convictions.\nThe sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged in this case. Rather, appellant challenges the admissibility of the fifteen text messages, and thus, we will only discuss the facts relevant to the those messages. We do note that the majority of the evidence mirrored the evidence presented in the first two trials.\nIt is undisputed that on January 18, 2003, appellant shot and killed his wife, Becky Teater, and shot and injured Rod McKinney. At trial, he asserted the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect. In essence, he asserted that he suffered from a mental disease or defect stemming from his belief that Becky and McKinney were having an affair.\nJust prior to the August 2007 trial, approximately four and one-half years after the shootings, appellant\u2019s current wife discovered fifteen text messages in the outbox of a cellular phone allegedly belonging to Becky. The messages were allegedly addressed to a cellular phone number belonging to McKinney. The text messages were, however, unidentifiable by time or date. The content of the messages was allegedly suggestive of an affair between Becky and McKinney.\nAppellant sought to introduce the text messages in an effort to prove that Becky and McKinney were having an affair at the time of the shootings. The State filed a motion in limine to exclude the text messages and preclude appellant from questioning McKinney about the substance of the messages. The court granted the State\u2019s motion stating:\nI guess the Defense is contending that these text messages refer \u2014 have a bearing, are important, or relevant in the trial because they relate to the state of mind of Mr. Teater.\nThe Court would disagree. The state of mind of the Defendant most important is his existing state of mind, matters known to him at the time of the offense. And matters that subsequently [came] to his knowledge can\u2019t have a bearing on his state of mind at the time of the alleged commission of the offense. So they would have to be excluded as attempting to offer them as extrinsic evidence relative to his state of mind.\nOn appeal, appellant asserts that this ruling was in error. The decision to admit or exclude evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse a trial court\u2019s decision regarding the admission of evidence absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Rollins v. State, 362 Ark. 279, 208 S.W.3d 215 (2005). Nor will we reverse absent a showing of prejudice, as prejudice is not presumed. Hanlin v. State, 356 Ark. 516, 157 S.W.3d 181 (2004).\nAppellant asserts that the text messages were relevant as proof of the affair between Becky and McKinney, thereby strengthening appellant\u2019s defense of mental disease or defect, and to impeach McKinney\u2019s trial testimony that he did not have an affair with Becky. Evidence which is not relevant is not admissible. Ark. R. Evid. 402 (2007). Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as \u201cevidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.\u201d Ark. R. Evid. 401 (2007). Even if relevant, evidence may nonetheless be excluded if its probative value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Ark. R. Evid. 403 (2007); Simmons v. State, 95 Ark. App. 114, 234 S.W.3d 321 (2006).\nAppellant\u2019s argument as to relevance fails. The only issue at trial was appellant\u2019s defense of lack of capacity in that he lacked the capacity as a result of mental disease or defect to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law or appreciate the criminality of his conduct. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-2-312(a) (Repl. 2006). It was undisputed that appellant believed that Becky and McKinney were having an affair and that appellant shot both Becky and McKinney. Even so, the messages were not relevant to establish his defense. First and foremost, the text messages were not discovered until 2007, approximately four and one-half years after the shootings. Appellant does not assert that he had knowledge of the text messages prior to his shooting of the victims. Because appellant was not aware of the text messages at the time of the shootings, the fact that they may have existed at the time he shot the victims can have no probative value regarding his mental state. Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered evidence. See Walker v. State, 304 Ark. 393, 803 S.W.2d 502 (1991) (stating that abuse of discretion is a high threshold that does not simply require error in the trial court\u2019s decision, but establishes that the trial court\u2019s decision was arbitrary and groundless).\nFurthermore, appellant asserts that pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 608 the text messages were admissible to impeach McKinney\u2019s credibility as to whether he and Becky had an affair. Appellant fails, however, to demonstrate how the trial court abused its discretion in precluding him from questioning McKinney as to the content of the text messages. Arkansas Rule of Evidence 608(b) (2007) states:\nSpecific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his credibility, other than conviction of a crime as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1) concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being cross-examined has testified.\nWe acknowledge the general proposition that matters affecting the credibility of a witness are always relevant. See Swinford v. State, 85 Ark. App. 326, 154 S.W.3d 262 (2004). At issue at the trial, however, was whether appellant lacked the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law or appreciate the criminality of his conduct. Appellant contends that had the jury known of the proffered evidence, the jury would have found McKinney\u2019s testimony regarding the details and events of the shooting to be less credible. However, nothing in McKinney\u2019s testimony related to appellant\u2019s demeanor at the time of the shooting or any other factual issue that could assist the jury in determining whether appellant had the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law. McKinney\u2019s testimony regarding the shootings consisted of a narrative of facts that were not in dispute. Appellant\u2019s attempt to discredit McKinney regarding the existence of the affair simply has no bearing on his defense of mental disease or defect.\nBased on the foregoing, we affirm appellant\u2019s convictions.\nAffirmed.\nHart and Robbins, JJ., agree.\nThis is appellant\u2019s third conviction on these charges. Appellant\u2019s previous appeals for the convictions were reversed and remanded for failure to instruct the jury on appellant\u2019s affirmative defense of mental disease or defect. See Teater v. State, 89 Ark. App. 215, 201 S.W.3d 442 (2005), and Teater v. State, CACR 06-936 (Ark. App. Apr. 4, 2007).\nAppellant mistakenly cites to Rule 806; however, his argument is premised on the wording in Rule 608.\nAppellant argues further that the text messages were not hearsay. But, given his failure to establish relevance, we need not address his argument as to whether the text messages were properly excludable as hearsay.", "type": "majority", "author": "Karen R. Baker, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "Gary McDonald and William A. McLean, for appellant.", "Dustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Steven Ralph TEATER v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 08-641\n290 S.W.3d 623\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered January 21, 2009\nGary McDonald and William A. McLean, for appellant.\nDustin McDaniel, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0268-01", "first_page_order": 294, "last_page_order": 299 }