{ "id": 1895746, "name": "David FOSTER v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Foster v. State", "decision_date": "1987-12-21", "docket_number": "CR 87-138", "first_page": "146", "last_page": "148", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "294 Ark. 146" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "741 S.W.2d 251" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "274 Ark. 506", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1755063 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1981, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/274/0506-01" ] }, { "cite": "286 Ark. 42", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8717371 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/286/0042-01" ] }, { "cite": "287 Ark. 468", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1876566 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1985, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/287/0468-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 329, "char_count": 3995, "ocr_confidence": 0.92, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4440253741530786e-07, "percentile": 0.6537593504486169 }, "sha256": "1c53cb774a06f9cc2365ad1269401bd4c99ed02b2b22c50a7fee4068c046331c", "simhash": "1:3b21847b740008b6", "word_count": 669 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:12:05.889486+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [], "parties": [ "David FOSTER v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nDavid Foster was convicted of rape [Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 41-1803 (Repl. 1977)] and sentenced to thirty-five years imprisonment. On appeal he argues that the judge erred in denying his motion for new trial since the prosecuting attorney engaged in prejudicial conduct during the course of the trial. We find no error and affirm.\nThe victim was raped on August 16, 1986. She positively identified Foster, who was a friend of her daughter, in a photographic lineup six days after the rape and also at trial. One of the state\u2019s medical experts testified that upon examination of the victim approximately four hours subsequent to the rape, he found fresh bruises on her chest and sperm in the vaginal vault. The prosecution\u2019s forensic serologist testified that he found an \u201cA\u201d blood group substance on the vaginal swabs which matched both Foster\u2019s and the victim\u2019s blood group.\nDuring the investigation of the rape, Foster made the following exculpatory statement to Sergeant Carol Kimble of the Pulaski County Sheriffs Department: \u201cI have never been in the house with [the victim].\u201d At trial, this statement was not introduced into evidence but was referred to by both the defense and prosecution when questioning various witnesses. Later, in his closing argument, defense counsel stated:\nWhat did the police know about the case? What real or physical evidence has been provided that in any way connects the defendant to the commission of this crime? The police know nothing. They took some statements. They took a statement. from the Defendant. He was arrested on August 21st, and they took a statement from him. Is there anything inconsistent in that statement with what was said today? If there had been, you\u2019d have heard about it.\nIn the state\u2019s closing rebuttal, the prosecutor responded:\nMr. Simpson also states that David gave his statement back to the police in August, 1986. Well, if he thought it was that important, and it was so consistent with David\u2019s testimony, don\u2019t you think you would have seen it, too? It\u2019s not, and you heard me ask David \u2014\nDefense counsel interrupted with an objection, which was sustained by the trial court. The defense then moved for a mistrial, which the trial court took under advisement, while at the same time admonishing the jury:\nLadies and gentlemen, a few moments ago during closing statements counsel made a reference to your not seeing a certain statement. The introduction of evidence in Court is governed by law. You will disregard that statement of counsel and will not give it any consideration or any weight during your deliberations.\nAt the conclusion of trial, the motion for mistrial was denied, and the jury returned its verdict of guilty. Foster filed a motion for a new trial, which was denied by the trial court. It found that any error committed was cured by the admonition. We agree.\nThe decision whether to grant a new trial is left to the sound discretion of the trial judge and will not be reversed in the absence of an abuse of discretion or manifest prejudice to the complaining party. Vasquez v. State, 287 Ark. 468, 701 S.W.2d 357 (1985). Unlike the statement in Timmons v. State, 286 Ark. 42, 688 S.W.2d 944 (1985), we cannot say with any degree of certainty that the error of trial counsel was prejudicial to Foster. An admonition to the jury usually cures a prejudicial statement unless it is so patently inflammatory that justice could not be served by continuing the trial. Abraham v. State, 274 Ark. 506, 625 S.W.2d 518 (1981). What little prejudice that may have resulted from the prosecutor\u2019s statement was cured by the trial court\u2019s admonition.\nAffirmed.", "type": "majority", "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice." } ], "attorneys": [ "William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Susan Wilson, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.", "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: /. Blake Hendrix, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "David FOSTER v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 87-138\n741 S.W.2d 251\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered December 21, 1987\n[Rehearing denied January 25, 1988.]\nWilliam R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Susan Wilson, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: /. Blake Hendrix, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0146-01", "first_page_order": 170, "last_page_order": 172 }