Teater v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CACR08-641
STEVEN RALPH TEATER
Opinion Delivered JANUARY 21, 2009
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-03-27-3]
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
HONORABLE EDWIN KEATON, JUDGE,
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
KAREN R. BAKER, Judge
Appellant Steven Ralph Teater was convicted by a jury in Ouachita County Circuit Court of
second-degree murder in the death of his wife and attempted second-degree murder of Rod
McKinney. He was sentenced to 360 months’ imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of
Correction. On appeal, he asserts that the trial court erred in granting the State’s motion in limine
excluding from evidence fifteen text messages found in the cellular phone of his deceased wife and
erred in precluding appellant from cross-examining McKinney about the text messages. We affirm
appellant’s convictions.
The sufficiency of the evidence is not challenged in this case. Rather, appellant challenges
the admissibility of the fifteen text messages, and thus, we will only discuss the facts relevant to the
those messages. We do note that the majority of the evidence mirrored the evidence presented in the
first two trials.1
1
This is appellant’s third conviction on these charges. Appellant’s previous appeals for
the convictions were reversed and remanded for failure to instruct the jury on appellant’s
It is undisputed that on January 18, 2003, appellant shot and killed his wife, Becky Teater,
and shot and injured Rod McKinney. At trial, he asserted the affirmative defense of mental disease
or defect. In essence, he asserted that he suffered from a mental disease or defect stemming from
his belief that Becky and McKinney were having an affair.
Just prior to the August 2007 trial, approximately four and one-half years after the shootings,
appellant’s current wife discovered fifteen text messages in the outbox of a cellular phone allegedly
belonging to Becky. The messages were allegedly addressed to a cellular phone number belonging
to McKinney. The text messages were, however, unidentifiable by time or date. The content of the
messages was allegedly suggestive of an affair between Becky and McKinney.
Appellant sought to introduce the text messages in an effort to prove that Becky and
McKinney were having an affair at the time of the shootings. The State filed a motion in limine to
exclude the text messages and preclude appellant from questioning McKinney about the substance
of the messages. The court granted the State’s motion stating:
I guess the Defense is contending that these text messages refer—have a bearing, are
important, or relevant in the trial because they relate to the state of mind of Mr. Teater.
The Court would disagree. The state of mind of the Defendant most important is his existing
state of mind, matters known to him at the time of the offense. And matters that
subsequently [came] to his knowledge can’t have a bearing on his state of mind at the time
of the alleged commission of the offense. So they would have to be excluded as attempting
to offer them as extrinsic evidence relative to his state of mind.
On appeal, appellant asserts that this ruling was in error. The decision to admit or exclude
evidence is within the sound discretion of the trial court, and we will not reverse a trial court’s
decision regarding the admission of evidence absent a manifest abuse of discretion. Rollins v. State,
affirmative defense of mental disease or defect. See Teater v. State, 89 Ark. App. 215, 201
S.W.3d 442 (2005), and Teater v. State, CACR 06-936 (Ark. App. Apr. 4, 2007).
-2-
362 Ark. 279, 208 S.W.3d 215 (2005). Nor will we reverse absent a showing of prejudice, as
prejudice is not presumed. Hanlin v. State, 356 Ark. 516, 157 S.W.3d 181 (2004).
Appellant asserts that the text messages were relevant as proof of the affair between Becky
and McKinney, thereby strengthening appellant’s defense of mental disease or defect, and to impeach
McKinney’s trial testimony that he did not have an affair with Becky. Evidence which is not
relevant is not admissible. Ark. R. Evid. 402 (2007). Rule 401 defines relevant evidence as
“evidence having any tendency to make the existence of any fact that is of consequence to the
determination of the action more probable or less probable than it would be without the evidence.”
Ark. R. Evid. 401 (2007). Even if relevant, evidence may nonetheless be excluded if its probative
value is substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. Ark. R. Evid. 403 (2007);
Simmons v. State, 95 Ark. App. 114, 234 S.W.3d 321 (2006).
Appellant’s argument as to relevance fails. The only issue at trial was appellant’s defense
of lack of capacity in that he lacked the capacity as a result of mental disease or defect to conform
his conduct to the requirements of the law or appreciate the criminality of his conduct. See Ark.
Code Ann. § 5-2-312(a) (Repl. 2006). It was undisputed that appellant believed that Becky and
McKinney were having an affair and that appellant shot both Becky and McKinney. Even so, the
messages were not relevant to establish his defense. First and foremost, the text messages were not
discovered until 2007, approximately four and one-half years after the shootings. Appellant does
not assert that he had knowledge of the text messages prior to his shooting of the victims. Because
appellant was not aware of the text messages at the time of the shootings, the fact that they may have
existed at the time he shot the victims can have no probative value regarding his mental state.
Therefore, the trial court did not abuse its discretion in excluding the proffered evidence. See Walker
-3-
v. State, 304 Ark. 393, 803 S.W.2d 502 (1991) (stating that abuse of discretion is a high threshold
that does not simply require error in the trial court’s decision, but establishes that the trial decision
was arbitrary and groundless).
Furthermore, appellants asserts that pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 6082 the text messages were
admissible to impeach McKinney’s credibility as to whether he and Becky had an affair. Appellant
fails, however, to demonstrate how the trial court abused its discretion in precluding him from
questioning McKinney as to the content of the text messages. Arkansas Rule of Evidence 608(b)
(2007) states:
Specific instances of the conduct of a witness, for the purpose of attacking or supporting his
credibility, other than conviction of a crime as provided in Rule 609, may not be proved by
extrinsic evidence. They may, however, in the discretion of the court, if probative of
truthfulness or untruthfulness, be inquired into on cross-examination of the witness (1)
concerning his character for truthfulness or untruthfulness, or (2) concerning the character
for truthfulness or untruthfulness of another witness as to which character the witness being
cross-examined has testified.
We acknowledge the general proposition that matters affecting the credibility of a witness
are always relevant. See Swinford v. State, 85 Ark. App. 326, 154 S.W.3d 262 (2004). At issue at
the trial, however, was whether appellant lacked the capacity to conform his conduct to the
requirements of the law or appreciate the criminality of his conduct. Appellant contends that had
the jury known of the proffered evidence, the jury would have found McKinney’s testimony
regarding the details and events of the shooting to be less credible. However, nothing in McKinney’s
testimony related to appellant’s demeanor at the time of the shooting or any other factual issue that
2
Appellant mistakenly cites to Rule 806; however, his argument is premised on the
wording in Rule 608.
-4-
could assist the jury in determining whether appellant had the capacity to conform his conduct to the
requirements of the law. McKinney’s testimony regarding the shootings consisted of a narrative of
facts that were not in dispute. Appellant’s attempt to discredit McKinney regarding the existence
of the affair simply has no bearing on his defense of mental disease or defect.
Based on the foregoing, we affirm appellant’s convictions.3
Affirmed.
HART and ROBBINS, JJ., agree.
3
Appellant argues further that the text messages were not hearsay. But, given his failure
to establish relevance, we need not address his argument as to whether the text messages were
properly excludable as hearsay.
-5-
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.
