Jason Basham v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Jason BASHAM v. STATE of Arkansas  CACR04­963  ___ S.W.3d ___  Court of Appeals of Arkansas  Opinion delivered May 17, 2006  EVIDENCE – EVIDENCE OF PRIOR BAD ACTS WAS ADMISSIBLE – WITNESS’S TESTIMONY  WAS  RELEVANT  TO  THE  FACTUAL  DETERMINATION  OF  WHETHER  APPELLANT  MISTAKENLY BELIEVED THE VICTIM HAD CONSENTED TO THE ACT.– Where testimony  of  appellant’s  prior  bad  acts  was  admitted  pursuant  to  Ark.  R.  Evid.  404(b),  the  appellate court, examining the mistake­of­fact defense addressed in the California  case of People v. Stitely, held that the witness’s testimony was relevant to the factual  determination  of  whether  appellant  honestly  and  in  good  faith,  albeit  mistakenly,  believed that the victim consented to anal penetration; accordingly, the trial court did  not err in finding the testimony independently relevant to the issue of lack of mistake  as to consent.  Appeal from Saline County Circuit Court; Gary M. Arnold, Judge; affirmed.  Dustin D. Dyer, for appellant.  Mike Beebe, Att’y Gen., by: Vada Berger, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.  KAREN R. BAKER, Judge.  Jason Basham was convicted in a Saline County jury trial of first­ ___________________________  BAKER, J. ­11  BASHAM v. STATE  Cite as 91 Ark. App. ___ (2006)  Page 2  degree terroristic threatening, second­degree sexual assault, second­degree battery, and rape. He was  sentenced to a total of forty­four years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction.  Appellant’s counsel initially filed a motion to withdraw on the grounds that the appeal was  without merit pursuant to Anders v. California, 386 U.S. 738 (1967), and Rule 4­3(j) of the Arkansas  Rules of the Supreme Court and Court of Appeals.  On June 29, 2005, we ordered rebriefing on the  grounds that appellant's counsel had not briefed all adversarial rulings.  On January 11, 2006, we  again  ordered  rebriefing.  The  terms  “wholly  frivolous”  and  “without  merit”  are  often  used  interchangeably in the Anders brief context.  Whichever term is used to describe the conclusion an  attorney must reach as to the appeal before requesting to withdraw and our court must reach before  granting the request, what is required is a determination that the appeal lacks any basis in law or fact.  McCoy v. Court of Appeals of Wisconsin, Dist. 1, 486 U.S. 439 (1998).  Due to  our conclusion that  an argument  on appeal addressing evidence of prior bad acts  pursuant to 404(b) would not be wholly frivolous, counsel’s motion to withdraw was denied and we  ordered rebriefing in adversary form.  Tucker v. State, 47 Ark. App. 96, 885 S.W.2d 904 (1994).  In  this adversarial brief, appellant’s sole argument is that the trial court erred in allowing evidence of  prior bad acts pursuant to Rule 404(b).  He asserts that the State’s argument that the similarity of the  acts showed absence of mistake or accident is inapplicable under the facts of this case.  We find that  the trial court did not err and affirm.  The  admission  or  rejection  of  evidence  under  Rule  404(b)  is  committed  to  the  sound ___________________________  BAKER, J. ­11  BASHAM v. STATE  Cite as 91 Ark. App. ___ (2006)  Page 3  discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse absent a showing of manifest abuse.  Medlock  v. State, 79 Ark. App. 447, 89 S.W.3d 357 (2002).  The general rule is that evidence of other crimes  by the accused, not charged in the indictment or information and not a part of the same transaction,  is not  admissible at the trial of the accused.  Anderson v. State, 357 Ark. 180, 163 S.W.3d 333  (2004).  The list of exceptions set out in the rule is exemplary and not exhaustive. White v. State, 290  Ark.  130,  717  S.W.2d  784  (1986).  Testimony  is  admissible  pursuant  to  Rule  404(b)  if  it  is  independently relevant to the main issue, relevant in the sense of tending to prove some material point  rather than merely to prove that the defendant is a criminal or a bad person. Mosley v. State, 325 Ark.  469, 929 S.W.2d 693 (1996).  The  trial  court  in  this  case  conducted  a  hearing  on  March  9,  2004,  to  determine  the  admissibility of the testimony appellant challenges here.  The witness testified that approximately  three and one­half years before, when she was living with appellant and pregnant with his child, he  forced her to have anal sex.  She described how when she tried to get away from him and screamed  at him to stop, he pushed her down on her stomach and held her down with his body.  She stated that  appellant eventually ended the painful experience because he became “turned off” by her crying and  screaming. This event led to her terminating the relationship.  Appellant’s rape conviction on the rape charge arose from appellant anally penetrating his wife  with his  penis  by  forcible  compulsion  while  beating  her  until  she  could  not  see,  threatening  the  children, and forcing their young son to witness the attack.  The victim testified that appellant first ___________________________  BAKER, J. ­11  BASHAM v. STATE  Cite as 91 Ark. App. ___ (2006)  Page 4  became violent with her when she was pregnant with their first child.  The circumstances surrounding  the rapes were not identical, but their similarities – that appellant was willing to disregard the wishes  of persons with whom he was in intimate relationships and to use force to anally penetrate them –  rendered  the testimony of the earlier rape admissible.  At trial and on appeal, appellant argued that he and the victim engaged in consensual anal  intercourse. However, when appellant’s counsel asked appellant whether his wife ever protested in  engaging in anal sex, he replied, “Not – not indirect,” and then elaborated, “At one point, she said that  – at one point she said that, no, she didn’t want it that way, at one point[,]” but that he did it that way  anyway.  On cross­examination, he explained that “she never said no, no, stop that.  The only thing  she ever said was no, she didn’t feel like it[,]” adding “[s]he just said no she didn’t feel like anal sex.”  This testimonycould reasonablybe understood to be a claim that appellant mistakenlythought  the victim consented. Appellant contends that the plain meaning of the words mistake or accident are  inapplicable to this case because no party suggested that appellant had sex with his wife by mistake  or accident – he readily admits they had sex. We agree with appellant that the issue was not whether  sexual contact occurred.  The factual determination to be made by the fact finder was not whether  appellant mistakenly had sex, but whether appellant mistakenly believed the victim had consented to  the act.  Although our legislature has not adopted the mistake­of­fact defense to a rape charge,  the  State of California allows the defense. The case of  People v. Stitely, 108 P.3d 182 (Cal. 2005) ___________________________  BAKER, J. ­11  BASHAM v. STATE  Cite as 91 Ark. App. ___ (2006)  Page 5  addressed  the  defense  and  an examination  of  the  defense  aids  our  analysis.  The  mistake  of  fact  defense to a rape charge has two components: first, the defendant must have honestly and in good  faith,  albeit  mistakenly,  believed  that  the  victim  consented  to  sexual  intercourse,  which  involves  evidence of equivocal  conduct by the victim that the defendant mistook for consent; second, an  objective component asks whether the defendant's mistaken belief regarding consent was reasonable  under the circumstances.  See id. at 208.  Therefore,  the  witness’s  testimony  was  relevant  to  the  factual  determination  of  whether  appellant  honestly  and  in  good  faith,  albeit  mistakenly,  believed  the  victim  consented  to  anal  penetration.  Accordingly, the trial court did not err in finding the testimony independently relevant  to the issue of lack of mistake as to consent.  Affirmed.  ROBBINS, J., agrees.  PITTMAN, C.J., concurs. ___________________________  BAKER, J. ­11 

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.