Charles Slater v. State of Arkansas

── Charles Slater v. State of Arkansas ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: March 18, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 196 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-25-274 Opinion Delivered March 18, 2026 CHARLES SLATER APPEAL FROM THE FULTON COUNTY APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 25CR-24-27] V. HONORABLE TIM WEAVER, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS AFFIRMED APPELLEE WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge A Fulton County Circuit Court jury found appellant Charles Slater guilty of rape for which he was sentenced to a term of forty years’ incarceration. On appeal, Slater argues (1) the prosecution for rape was barred by the statute of limitations; (2) the circuit court erred in denying his motion in limine to prohibit Rule 404(b) evidence; (3) the circuit court erred in excluding testimony under the Rape Shield Act; and (4) the improper admission of Rule 404(b) evidence was not harmless error. We affirm Slater’s conviction for rape and the resulting sentence. On March 28, 2024, Slater was charged by criminal information with two counts of rape. His half sister, A.P., reported that when she was ten or eleven years old, between 1999 and 2000, twenty-one-year-old Slater came into her room and digitally penetrated her vagina. She also stated that he inserted a plastic object into her vagina that same night. On a different night, Slater coerced her into touching his penis.  On April 23, Slater filed a motion and brief in support to declare the relevant statute unconstitutional as applied to him. Specifically, he contended that Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-1-109(a)(1)(D)1, as effective when the charges were filed against him, violates the ex post facto clause because it serves to revive a previously time-barred prosecution. The circuit court denied the motion. Prior to trial, Slater also filed a motion in limine to prohibit Rule 404(b) evidence. He sought to exclude evidence of his other bad acts, submitting that the State intended to use the information to show that he is a criminal and is likely to be guilty of the crime at issue. He argued that the bad- acts testimony of his daughters was not independently relevant because the alleged acts occurred many years after the charged crime, and the alleged acts were not similar to the crime charged. Following the proffer of witness testimony in a pretrial hearing, the circuit court found that the pedophile exception applied and denied Slater’s motion. The State moved to exclude evidence of other sexual conduct and/or sexual allegations of the victim. The circuit court granted the State’s motion, ruling that the evidence was protected by the rape-shield statute. The case proceeded to jury trial on January 30, 2025. A.P. testified that Slater, her half brother, is ten years her senior. She said that she came forward with her story when she “learned what had happened with his children[.]” A.P. testified that when she was a child, Slater visited them on holidays and other random times for a week or more. One night when she was ten or eleven, she woke up to something touching her leg. She turned her head and saw Slater kneeling at the side of 1 (Supp. 2023). 2 her bed. A.P. testified that Slater put his hand on her leg and ran it up and down her leg, near the panty area. He then placed his hand inside her underwear. A.P. said that Slater inserted his finger inside her vagina and asked if she was a virgin. She responded yes, and then he asked if it felt good and she said no. Slater then r