Opinion ID: 1518209
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: admissibility of writing log

Text: Bonds argues that the trial court erred in not admitting into evidence a writing log compiled by his youngest daughter. We hold otherwise. On cross-examination, the defense and the daughter had the following dialogue: Q. Do you keep any type of diary? A. We had to keep a writing log for English. It was like fifteen minutes every Friday we would write stuff in it about how the week was. Q. And this was for English. A. Uh-huh. Q. Did you hand those things in? A. We handshe didn'tshe wouldn't read them, and she neverwe didn't hand them in; she just checked to make sure we did it. We didn't hand it in. I had an assignment that I had to turn in, but . . . . . Q. You did keep a diary, though, didn't you, that you wrote your secret thoughts in? A. Not a diary. Q. Well, you wrote them down. A. In a writing log. The defense then attempted to introduce the log for impeachment purposes stating: Your Honor, these writings were writings that I think she admittedshe stated she did it for English class, but when she looks at them they are notthey are notes about boys, who she's in love with, some thoughts of little girls is not going to tell someone else, especially their parents. They don't want anyone else to look at it; it's their secret thoughts. But in all this time there's not one mention of anything, not one, of her father of anythingtrouble with her father or this abuse in all these writings. Now she tells how happy she is in there; she tells how mad she is sometimes, but it's always because she's in love or something was not happening in school or a boy she's in love with and they broke up and this stuff. The trial judge refused to admit the writing log stating, I don't see any impeachment here. Subsequently, defense counsel asked, Well, you've never written anything down that is available right now concerning these acts you have complained of, have you? She replied, No. We do not address the issue of whether the trial court erred in refusing to admit the writing log into evidence since even assuming this was error, Bonds has not demonstrated any prejudice resulted which would require reversal. We will not reverse for errors which do not affect the essential fairness of a trial. See Scherrer v. State, 294 Ark. 227, 742 S.W.2d 877 (1988). After the trial court declined to admit the log for impeachment purposes, the daughter admitted that there was nothing in the log concerning acts of sexual contact by her father. The lack of reference to her father in her writing log was exactly what Bonds was attempting to introduce into evidence for impeachment purposes.