{
  "id": 8720874,
  "name": "Solomon Kirk ESKEW and Curtis Leroy BOLTON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Eskew v. State",
  "decision_date": "1981-09-21",
  "docket_number": "CR 81-44",
  "first_page": "490",
  "last_page": "492",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "273 Ark. 490"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "621 S.W.2d 220"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "267 Ark. 345",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1719904
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/267/0345-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "266 Ark. 257",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        8718190
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1979,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/266/0257-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 263,
    "char_count": 3233,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.813,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.0495887862006018e-07,
      "percentile": 0.7552129487085927
    },
    "sha256": "8064894746040dde65efc677d4e1b1512f535ad6694e90de02196c9559524a86",
    "simhash": "1:66cae4b22826754e",
    "word_count": 537
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T18:17:45.388199+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Adkisson, C.J., not participating."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Solomon Kirk ESKEW and Curtis Leroy BOLTON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "John I. Purtle, Justice.\nAppellants were convicted in the Pulaski Circuit Court of rape and kidnapping, and their sentences were fixed at 20 years and 15 years respectively, to run consecutively.\nOn appeal appellants argue two points: (1) the court erred in not allowing evidence on the question of prior sexual misconduct on the part of the prosecuting witness; and, (2) the evidence was insufficient to support the appellants\u2019 conviction for a class A felony.\nThe appellants admitted having sexual intercourse with the prosecuting witness but claimed it was by mutual consent. The prosecuting witness testified she was forced to engage in sexual intercourse and deviate sexual activity. The appellants took the prosecuting witness out by the Little Rock airport where the alleged crime occurred. They then drove her back to the central part of Little Rock and released her about three blocks from her home.\nWe first deal with the failure of the court to allow evidence of the prosecuting witness\u2019s prior sexual conduct.. We think the court was entirely correct in this ruling. Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1810.1 (Repl. 1977) clearly holds such evidence is inadmissible unless it meets certain tests outlined in Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1810.2. We have consistently held that evidence of prior consensual sexual conduct is inadmissible unless such prior sexual activities were with the accused. In that event the testimony is allowed only to show that consent may have been given. See Houston v. State, 266 Ark. 257, 582 S.W. 2d 958 (1979); Marion v. State, 267 Ark. 345, 590 S.W 2d 288 (1979).\nEvidence of prior sexual conduct on the part of a prosecuting witness is not admissible simply to show she had had prior sexual conduct. The fact that a woman may be free with her sexual favors does not entitle anyone to such favors against her wishes. In the present case the prosecuting witness clearly and unequivocally stated she was forcibly raped, and she exhibited bruises and abrasions to the doctor who examined her following the rape and to other witnesses who testified at the trial. The doctor verified she had recently engaged in sexual intercourse. The appellants both stated she freely gave them the favor, and we therefore have a factual question to be presented to the jury. The jury chose to believe the prosecuting witness, and we are not at liberty to disturb that decision.\nThe second argument by appellants is that the evidence was insufficient to support the appellants\u2019 conviction for class A felony kidnapping. This may well be true but the fact remains that the appellants never requested an instruction on class C kidnapping, and the matter is raised for the first time on appeal. We need not cite authority for the proposition that we do not consider matters raised for the first time on appeal.\nAffirmed.\nAdkisson, C.J., not participating.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "John I. Purtle, Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John W. Walker, PA., by: James P. Massie, and William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Deborah Sailings, Deputy Public Defender, for appellee.",
      "Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Victra L. Fewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Solomon Kirk ESKEW and Curtis Leroy BOLTON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 81-44\n621 S.W. 2d 220\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered September 21, 1981\nJohn W. Walker, PA., by: James P. Massie, and William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Deborah Sailings, Deputy Public Defender, for appellee.\nSteve Clark, Atty. Gen., by: Victra L. Fewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0490-01",
  "first_page_order": 510,
  "last_page_order": 512
}