Court Opinion

ID: 9656648
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 19:54:00.675152+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:34.059002
License: Public Domain

L. Brown, Justice, concurring in part, dissenting in part. I, too, would reverse and remand, but I would do so to require the circuit judge to first perform the Townsend analysis. See State v. Townsend, 366 Ark. 152, 233 S.W.3d 680 (2006). In Townsend, this court adopted five factors to be used by the circuit judges of this state for determining prior knowledge of a child of sexual events and terminology. In the case before us today, the circuit judge did not make the findings or conclusions, as required by Townsend. The majority does the analysis for the circuit judge, including making findings under Townsend and reaching conclusions, which is totally at odds with our role as an appellate court. We would be better served remanding the case and requiring the circuit judge to make the necessary findings. This could be done by the judge solely based on the record of the rape-shield hearing that has already taken place and would not cause an inordinate delay. For this reason, I concur in the result but I disagree with the majority’s reasoning for doing so. Gunter, J., joins.