Jimmy Smith v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS  NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  SAM BIRD, JUDGE  DIVISION IV  CACR07­277  FEBRUARY  6, 2008  JIMMY SMITH  APPELLANT  V. APPEAL  FROM  THE  PULASKI  COUNTY  CIRCUIT  COURT,  FIFTH  DIVISION, [NO. CR2006­1007]  HON. WILLARD PROCTOR JR.,  JUDGE  STATE OF ARKANSAS  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED  Antoine Baker and appellant Jimmy Smith were charged in Pulaski County with first­  degree murder in the death of Corte Beavers, who died from gunshot wounds on November  9, 2005.  Smith was found guilty in a jury trial and was sentenced as a habitual offender to  sixty years’ imprisonment.  He contends that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing  to  permit  defense  counsel  to  cross  examine  State’s  witness  Brenda  Gonzalez  about  her  pending one­year jail sentence as proof of her motive to testify falsely.  We agree with the  State that the point on appeal is not preserved for our review.  Brenda Gonzalez testified during direct examination that Beavers, who was lying in  the street, told her that he had been shot and was dying.  She testified that Beavers named Smith as one of his assailants.  Counsel for the defense approached the bench during cross­  examination, and the following colloquy ensued:  DEFENSE COUNSEL:  I  would  like  to  ask  the  witness  if  she,  number  one,  is  a  prostitute;  number two, if she has been convicted of second offense prostitution  in Saline County, if she received a year in jail for that and if she has  that  presently  on  appeal  and  if  she  has  an  expectation  that  this  prosecutor will help her to get out of that year that she’s been sentenced  to in her trial de novo in circuit court for prostitution.  . . . I think this  shows  that  she  would  do  anything  to  further  her  selfish  interest,  including  having  sex  with  strangers  for  money,  that  this  shows  her  motive to testify for the prosecutor.  This shows that she needs to stay  on good terms with the prosecution since her occupation is that she’s  a prostitute.  It’s part of the res gestae.  It also impeaches her story that she’s out in the early morning  hours just doing her laundry.  It goes to her credibility and allows me  to confront her about this dying declaration more fully and under the  Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses. . . .  I have a right to  present a defense and fully explore this witness’s credibility.  . . . .  PROSECUTING ATTORNEY:  . . . I don’t have a problem if he wants to ask her about her prostitution.  I think she’s going to answer truthfully on that.  . . . [S]he’s going to say  yes, she prostituted for crack cocaine in the past.  The other thing is she’s been convicted of the prostitution and  given a year in jail.  She filed an appeal.  We have nothing to do with  that.  Misdemeanor convictions just aren’t admissible.  I mean he can  ask all day–he can ask all day if she’s gotten a deal or she expects help  on anything.  . . . He can ask all day on–if there’s a deal or whatever, but  the specificity of that, I just don’t see that she’s been convicted twice of  prostitution, what relevance that has. ­2­  CACRO7­277  And the fact that it’s on appeal, there’s no way we could–I mean  it’s  one  thing  to  testify  to  sentencing,  that  someone  testified  that  an  appeal–there’s absolutely nothing we could do anyway.  The trial court ruled that defense counsel would be allowed to ask Gonzalez if she had  any expectation of help from the prosecutors or the State, but questioning about the Saline  County conviction would not be allowed.  Defense counsel argued that the testimony would  go to the witness’s bias and motive to testify favorably for the State in hopes of not having  to  serve  her  one­year  sentence.  The  court  again  ruled  that  the  testimony  would  not  be  allowed.  Under further cross examination Gonzalez testified that she was a prostitute,  that she did not have “any expectation that the State will help in my business endeavors by  testifying here,”  and  that  the  State  had  “not  even  offered.”    On  redirect  examination  she  explained that she was not taking crack on the night in question.  She stated that, having  already told the jury that she “prostituted” and was a crack addict, she had no reason not to  tell them if she had been engaged in prostitution on the night that Beavers was killed.  Defense counsel again approached the bench at the beginning of re­cross examination,  contending that the State opened the door to the Saline County prostitution conviction by  asking “do you have any reason to lie after you’ve told that you’re a prostitute and when you  gave the statement, you were in jail, did you need help?”  He argued that the question created  the impression that Gonzalez did not need help for her problems “and, in fact, she’s going to  have to do a year if she doesn’t get help in Saline County, if her case isn’t resolved favorably  on appeal.”  Counsel repeated his earlier arguments regarding the Sixth Amendment, “all ­3­  CACRO7­277  those reasons . . . stated previously,” and “the right to present a trial.”  The court denied his  motion and allowed no further argument.  Point on Appeal  Smith contends on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion in refusing to permit  defense counsel to develop proof of Gonzalez’s motive to testify falsely by cross­examining  her about her pending one­year jail sentence in Saline County.  He asserts that he should have  been allowed to cross­examine her on this point in order to avoid her possible bias in favor  of the State.  He argues that the jury, if made aware of the pending sentence, could have  assessed whether she had an expectation that in return for her testimony implicating Smith  the State would try to reduce or eliminate her then pending sentence.  Rule 103 of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence requires a party to make a proffer of the  testimony  or  evidence  sought  to  be  admitted  unless  it  is  clear  from  the  context  of  the  questions asked what the evidence would be.  See also Halford v. State, 342 Ark. 80, 87, 27  S.W.3d 346, 350 (2000) (holding that the exclusion of testimony relevant to bias of the State’s  witness was not preserved for review where defense counsel, after advising the trial court that  he wanted to pose certain questions on cross­examination, failed to go forward with a proffer  of what the testimony would have been).  Although the State acknowledged at a bench conference that Gonzalez had a pending  jail sentence for prostitution, nothing in the record suggests how she would have answered  questions about the sentence itself or her possible expectations that the prosecutor might help  her avoid it.  Because no proffer of her testimony was made and because it is not clear from ­4­  CACRO7­277  the  questions  of  defense  counsel  what  her  testimony  would  have  been,  the  issue  is  not  preserved for appeal.  Affirmed.  GLOVER  and VAUGHT, JJ., agree. ­5­  CACRO7­277 

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.