## Facts

- Korey Fells approached S.H. at the entrance of a housing project and spoke with her for 20–30 minutes, offering help and food.
- S.H., pregnant and having earlier complications, told Fells she was hungry, had outstanding warrants, and had nowhere to go.
- Fells drove S.H. to an unfamiliar area, parked, and they moved to the back seat.
- S.H. testified Fells groped her; when she protested, he threatened to leave her stranded, and she submitted to intercourse out of fear for herself and her unborn child.
- Police approached the vehicle shortly after; S.H. reported rape, and Fells told officers S.H. had outstanding warrants.
- Before trial, the court granted the State’s motion to bar evidence and cross-examination about S.H.’s HIV-positive status, which the defense claimed showed a motive to fabricate (to avoid potential criminal exposure if the sex were consensual and undisclosed).
- The trial court also admitted testimony from R.B., an alleged prior victim, as other-acts evidence under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b).
- A Pulaski County jury convicted Fells of rape, and he was sentenced to 18 years’ imprisonment.
- The Arkansas Court of Appeals reversed, but the Arkansas Supreme Court granted review and treated the matter as originally filed in that court.

## Issues

1. Whether excluding evidence and cross-examination about the complainant’s HIV-positive status improperly limited the defense theory of motive to fabricate and was error under evidentiary rules, including rape-shield principles and Rule 403.
2. Whether admitting testimony from an alleged prior victim under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b) was improper propensity evidence or was admissible to show intent, plan, or scheme and subject to Rule 403 balancing.
3. Whether limiting cross-examination using a police case summary constituted reversible error.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, reversing the court of appeals.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by excluding evidence of S.H.’s HIV-positive status.
- The court held the trial court did not abuse its discretion by admitting R.B.’s testimony under Rule 404(b) as proof of intent and a common plan or scheme, and as corroborative of S.H.’s account.
- The court held any restriction on cross-examination using the police case summary was not reversible error.

## Legal Principles

- Evidence concerning a sexual-assault complainant that implicates sexual history or related sensitive matters may be excluded under rape-shield protections and, independently, under standard relevance and Rule 403 analysis.
- A defendant’s motive-to-fabricate theory must be supported by a non-speculative link between the proffered evidence and a concrete motive; attenuated theories may be excluded as minimally probative and substantially prejudicial or confusing.
- Other-acts evidence is inadmissible to prove character-based propensity but may be admitted under Rule 404(b) for permissible purposes such as intent, plan, scheme, or absence of mistake when sufficiently similar to the charged conduct.
- Trial courts have broad discretion in Rule 403 balancing; appellate courts generally defer absent an abuse of discretion and resulting prejudice.

## Conclusion

The Arkansas Supreme Court reinstated Fells’s rape conviction, concluding the trial court acted within its discretion in excluding HIV-status evidence offered to suggest a speculative motive to fabricate and in admitting prior-assault testimony as Rule 404(b) evidence of intent and a common plan, with no reversible error in the remaining cross-examination ruling.


Fells v. State, 207 S.W.3d 498 (Ark. 2005)