Fells v. State

I must respectfully dissent. I disagree that a person’s HIV status constitutes prohibited evidence of specific instances of a rape victim’s prior sexual conduct. I also disagree that Ark. R. Evid. 404 is as broad as the majority concludes. The issue of the admissibility of S.H.’s HIV status is relevant and should have been analyzed under Ark. R. Evid. 401 and Ark. R. Evid. 403.11 would reverse the circuit court, affirm the court of appeals, and remand the case for a new trial.

While I certainly share the majority’s well-justified concern about protecting rape victims in criminal prosecutions,…