{
  "id": 8718190,
  "name": "Mikel Wayne HOUSTON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Houston v. State",
  "decision_date": "1979-07-02",
  "docket_number": "CR 79-55",
  "first_page": "257",
  "last_page": "259",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "266 Ark. 257"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "582 S.W.2d 958"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "259 Ark. 81",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1619139
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1976,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/259/0081-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 243,
    "char_count": 2800,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.863,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.6498351850437523e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8239528636611633
    },
    "sha256": "c8cd0673e1f7d41ef0044826350f3024b5d635339fc634c8a334f85149963d6d",
    "simhash": "1:02cf81076b24ebeb",
    "word_count": 453
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:44:50.628261+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "We agree. Harris, C.J. and George Rose Smith and Byrd, JJ."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Mikel Wayne HOUSTON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Darrell Hickman, Justice.\nMikel Wayne Houston was convicted of rape by forcible compulsion in violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1803 (Repl. 1977) and sentenced to 20 years\u2019 imprisonment.\nOn appeal his counsel alleges only one error: the trial court should have allowed the introduction of evidence regarding the victim\u2019s reputation and prior sexual conduct. The trial judge properly excluded the evidence and we affirm the judgment.\nHouston, age 25, was charged with raping a 16 year old girl. The victim testified that she and Houston had a date, drove to a secluded place and Houston pulled a gun on her, forcing her to have sexual intercourse. Houston testified she consented.\nHouston made a pre-trial motion requesting permission to use evidence about the victim\u2019s reputation and prior sexual conduct.\nAn in camera hearing was held and testimony of witnesses recorded as provided for in Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1810.2 (Repl. 1977). At the private hearing, one witness said he had \u201cmessed around\u201d with the victim; another said that he had had sexual intercourse once with the victim; testimony was offered that the victim \u201chung around clubs and bars.\u201d The victim testified, and she essentially disputed all the unfavorable testimony.\nThe appellant argues that evidence should have been admitted because it was relevant and to impeach the victim\u2019s credibility since she denied the essence of the proffered testimony. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1810.1 (Repl. 1977) specifically prohibits the introduction of such testimony and further states such evidence:\n... is not admissible by the defendant, either through direct examination of any defense witness or through cross-examination of the victim or other prosecution witness, to attack the credibility of the victim, to prove consent or any other defense, or for any other purpose.\nThe statute, then, clearly prohibits the use of such evidence for the reasons argued by Houston. The trial court ruled the evidence was not relevant and we cannot say that decision was clearly erroneous.\nHouston was permitted to file his own separate pro se brief in this case. He makes essentially the same arguments as his counsel. However, he also makes allegations of ineffective assistance of counsel. We will not consider that issue because it was not raised at the trial level. Hilliard v. Stale, 259 Ark. 81, 531 S.W. 2d 463 (1976).\nHowever, relief under rule 37, Rules of Criminal Procedure, is not precluded.\nAffirmed.\nWe agree. Harris, C.J. and George Rose Smith and Byrd, JJ.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Darrell Hickman, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Achor, Public Defender, by: James Phillips, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Robert J. DeGostin, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mikel Wayne HOUSTON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 79-55\n582 S.W. 2d 958\nOpinion delivered July 2, 1979\n(Division I)\nJohn W. Achor, Public Defender, by: James Phillips, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Robert J. DeGostin, Jr., Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0257-01",
  "first_page_order": 283,
  "last_page_order": 285
}