{ "id": 1892780, "name": "John Russell BONDS v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Bonds v. State", "decision_date": "1988-06-13", "docket_number": "CR 88-4", "first_page": "1", "last_page": "8", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "296 Ark. 1" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "751 S.W.2d 339" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark.", "id": 8808, "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "292 Ark. 188", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1871406 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/292/0188-01" ] }, { "cite": "294 Ark. 227", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1895825 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/294/0227-01" ] }, { "cite": "545 S.W.2d 606", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.2d", "case_ids": [ 1616825, 1616690, 1678846 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/260/0857-01", "/ark/260/0785-01", "/ark/261/0026-01" ] }, { "cite": "260 Ark. 857", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1616825 ], "year": 1977, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/260/0857-01" ] }, { "cite": "295 Ark. 385", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1893761 ], "weight": 3, "year": 1988, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/295/0385-01" ] }, { "cite": "288 Ark. 321", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 8720171 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/288/0321-01" ] }, { "cite": "137 S.W. 814", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1911, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "99 Ark. 126", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1314452 ], "year": 1911, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/99/0126-01" ] }, { "cite": "123 S.W. 388", "category": "reporters:state_regional", "reporter": "S.W.", "year": 1909, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "92 Ark. 413", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1548612 ], "year": 1909, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/92/0413-01" ] }, { "cite": "227 Ark. 789", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1705285 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1957, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/227/0789-01" ] }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-1-109", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-26-202", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-14-103", "category": "laws:leg_statute", "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.", "year": 1987, "opinion_index": 0 }, { "cite": "289 Ark. 323", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 1875407 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1986, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/289/0323-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 646, "char_count": 10966, "ocr_confidence": 0.889, "pagerank": { "raw": 2.4946592748670515e-07, "percentile": 0.808893684535276 }, "sha256": "d51d4acbc82c3a7e40a1af0a22ead8d4d4d7e3c5a72cd1102833cc9b4e063f0b", "simhash": "1:df4e07965e4fdef9", "word_count": 1881 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T19:25:51.901471+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Hays and Glaze, JJ., concur.", "Hays, J., joins in this concurrence." ], "parties": [ "John Russell BONDS v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nAppellant John Russell Bonds was convicted of rape of his youngest daughter and incest against his eldest daughter and sentenced to a life and ten-year term, respectively, the sentences to run concurrently. He argues five points for reversal. We find no error and affirm the judgment of the trial court.\nPRIOR CRIMES\nBonds contends that the trial court erred in permitting the State to introduce evidence of sexual contact he had with his daughters other than that for which he was charged in violation of Ark. R. Evid. 404(b). We disagree.\nRule 404(b) provides in pertinent part as follows:\nEvidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith. It may, however, be admissible for other purposes, such as proof of motive, opportunity, intent, preparation, plan, knowledge, identity, or absence of mistake or accident.\nIn Sullivan v. State, 289 Ark. 323, 711 S.W.2d 469 (1986), we held that if evidence of prior acts of sexual contact between an accused and his step-daughter is relevant to show the rape of which appellant was accused had occurred, the evidence is admissible under Rule 404(b). Accordingly, since evidence of prior acts of sexual contact between Bonds and his daughters was relevant to show that the rapes and acts of incest of which Bonds was accused had occurred, the evidence was admissible.\nNOTIFICATION OF CHARGES\nBonds argues that he was not adequately notified of the charges against him in violation of the sixth amendment to the United States Constitution and Art. 2, \u00a7 10, of the Arkansas Constitution because the rape and incest informations failed to specify the persons against whom and the specific dates on which the crimes were allegedly committed. We disagree.\nThe felony information charging Bonds with rape provided in pertinent part as follows:\n[T]he State of Arkansas Charges John Russell Bonds with the crime of violating Ark. Stat. Ann. Section 41-1803 (C) [Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-14-103 (1987)] Rape, to-wit: The said Defendant, in Van Bur\u00e9n County, Arkansas, on repeated occasions, engaged in sexual intercourse and deviate sexual activity with another person who was less than fourteen (14) years of age, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas. A Class Y Felony.\nThe State amended the information to state that \u201csaid conduct by the defendant as alleged occurred within three years immediately preceding the filing of the original information.\u201d\nThe felony information charging Bonds with incest stated in pertinent part as follows:\n[T]he State of Arkansas Charges John Russell Bonds with the crime of violating Ark. Stat. Ann. Section 41-2403 [Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-26-202 (1987)] (INCEST) committed as follows, to-wit: The said Defendant(s), in Van Bur\u00e9n County, Arkansas on or about the_day of_, 19_, did unlawfully, feloniously, and being 16 years of age or older, had sexual intercourse and/or deviate sexual activity with a person he knew to be a descendant, step-child, or adopted child, against the peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas.\nDuring a recess after the jury was sworn but before testimony was taken, the State made it clear that it would prove that the acts of incest for which Bonds was charged occurred within the three-year statute of limitations [Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-1-109 (1987)].\nAlthough it is better and safer practice to include in an information or indictment the date on which or the time frame in which an offense occurred, it is not necessarily fatal to an indictment or information if such data is not included, unless time is an essential element of the offense. See Kirkam v. City of North Little Rock, 227 Ark. 789, 301 S.W.2d 559 (1957). See also Grayson v. State, 92 Ark. 413, 123 S.W. 388 (1909); Threadgill v. State, 99 Ark. 126, 137 S.W. 814 (1911).\nUnder the facts of this case, it was not necessary that the State include in the rape and incest informations the dates on which the offenses occurred. First, it is clear that time is not an essential element of rape, Huffman v. State, 288 Ark. 321, 704 S.W.2d 627 (1986), or incest. Secondly, the State informed Bonds that the rape for which he was charged took place within three years immediately preceding the filing of the original information and that the acts of incest for which he was charged took place within the statute of limitations. Furthermore, in crimes of this nature against family members, as compared to offenses against victims with whom the accused had no prior contact, an accused is more likely to be aware of the specifics of the charges against him and therefore better able to prepare his defense.\nSince he did not make the argument below, we will not address Bonds\u2019 contention that his constitutional rights were violated in that the indictments failed to include the names of the victims of the crimes. Gooden v. State, 295 Ark. 385, 749 S.W.2d 657 (1988). We do not consider issues raised for the first time on appeal. Id.\nDOUBLE JEOPARDY\nBonds contends that his convictions violated the double jeopardy clauses of the United States and Arkansas Constitutions based upon the following argument:\nOf the multitude of incidents testified to against the defendant it is as reasonable as not that the jury believed only one daughter on one separate instant which may or may not have occurred after the child turned fifteen. The burden is on the state to prove the defendant guilty. But which charge, if any, did they prove?\nBonds has failed to support his double jeopardy contention with convincing argument or any citation of authority. He has in effect asked us to research the law on the subject. Therefore, we will not consider his assignment of error. Dixon v. State, 260 Ark. 857, 545 S.W.2d 606 (1977).\nADMISSIBILITY OF WRITING LOG\nBonds argues that the trial court erred in not admitting into evidence a \u201cwriting log\u201d compiled by his youngest daughter. We hold otherwise.\nOn cross-examination, the defense and the daughter had the following dialogue:\nQ. Do you keep any type of diary?\nA. We had to keep a writing log for English. It was like fifteen minutes every Friday we would write stuff in it about how the week was.\nQ. And this was for English.\nA. Uh-huh.\nQ. Did you hand those things in?\nA. We hand \u2014 she didn\u2019t \u2014 she wouldn\u2019t read them, and she never \u2014\u2022 we didn\u2019t hand them in; she just checked to make sure we did it. We didn\u2019t hand it in. I had an assignment that I had to turn in, but \u2014\nQ. You did keep a diary, though, didn\u2019t you, that you wrote your secret thoughts in?\nA. Not a diary.\nQ. Well, you wrote them down.\nA. In a writing log.\nThe defense then attempted to introduce the log for impeachment purposes stating:\nYour Honor, these writings were writings that I think she admitted \u2014 she stated she did it for English class, but when she looks at them they are not \u2014 they are notes about boys, who she\u2019s in love with, some thoughts of little girls is not going to tell someone else, especially their parents. They don\u2019t want anyone else to look at it; it\u2019s their secret thoughts.\nBut in all this time there\u2019s not one mention of anything, not one, of her father of anything \u2014 trouble with her father or this abuse in all these writings. Now she tells how happy she is in there; she tells how mad she is sometimes, but it\u2019s always because she\u2019s in love or something was not happening in school or a boy she\u2019s in love with and they broke up and this stuif.\nThe trial judge refused to admit the writing log stating, \u201cI don\u2019t see any impeachment here.\u201d\nSubsequently, defense counsel asked, \u201cWell, you\u2019ve never written anything down that is available right now concerning these acts you have complained of, have you?\u201d She replied, \u201cNo.\u201d\nWe do not address the issue of whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit the writing log into evidence since even assuming this was error, Bonds has not demonstrated any prejudice resulted which would require reversal. We will not reverse for errors which do not affect the essential fairness of a trial. See Scherrer v. State, 294 Ark. 227, 742 S.W.2d 877 (1988).\nAfter the trial court declined to admit the log for impeachment purposes, the daughter admitted that there was nothing in the log concerning acts of sexual contact by her father. The lack of reference to her father in her writing log was exactly what Bonds was attempting to introduce into evidence for impeachment purposes.\nPROSECUTOR\u2019S MISCONDUCT\nBonds contends that the prosecutor\u2019s remarks in his opening statement and closing argument were so inflammatory and prejudicial that he was denied a fair trial.\nIn his opening statement, the prosecutor stated:\nBut Kim [the youngest daughter] finally had enough and early, early this year, after this last episode on the 26th when he hurt her and frightened her so badly, that she went to school and she confided what happened, what was being done to her and had been done to her at school \u2014 an officer of the school, a teacher\u2019s aid that was working with the cheerleaders \u2014 she was a cheerleader. Now that person has since moved off and they\u2019re not here, and under rules of evidence it\u2019s not admissible; she couldn\u2019t tell her what Kim told her anyway.\nIn his closing argument, the prosecutor remarked, \u201cKim told a young friend who was a teacher\u2019s aid at school, and that blew the whole thing open.\u201d\nBonds\u2019 counsel did not object to the closing statements and only objected to the opening remarks on the basis that the prosecutor was repeating himself. Since Bonds did not make a specific objection to the allegedly inflammatory or prejudicial nature of prosecutor\u2019s opening or closing statements, we will not consider his argument. See Cobbs v. State, 292 Ark. 188, 728 S.W.2d 957 (1987).\nPursuant to Ark. Sup. Ct. R. 11(f), we have made our own examination of all other objections made at trial and find no reversible error.\nAffirmed.\nHays and Glaze, JJ., concur.", "type": "majority", "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice." }, { "text": "Tom Glaze, Justice,\nconcurring. I concur as to the admissibility of the victim\u2019s writing log. The victim kept the log in connection with an English class she attended. One must stretch his or her imagination to conclude that the victim\u2019s testimony that the appellant (father) had raped her would be impeached by showing the victim had omitted her father\u2019s name as a lover or sexual encounter in her English assignment. Clearly, the trial judge did not abuse his discretion in excluding the girl\u2019s writing log as irrelevant. By this concurrence, I leave no doubt that I would affirm on this point without reaching the question concerning the appellant\u2019s failure to demonstrate prejudice.\nHays, J., joins in this concurrence.", "type": "concurrence", "author": "Tom Glaze, Justice," } ], "attorneys": [ "Jack M. Lewis, for appellant.", "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Blake Hendrix, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "John Russell BONDS v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 88-4\n751 S.W.2d 339\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered June 13, 1988\n[Rehearing denied July 11, 1988.]\nJack M. Lewis, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: J. Blake Hendrix, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee.\nPurtle, J., would grant rehearing." }, "file_name": "0001-01", "first_page_order": 23, "last_page_order": 30 }