Charles McChristian v. State of Arkansas

── Charles McChristian v. State of Arkansas ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: May 06, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 288 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION III No. CR-25-300 Opinion Delivered May 6, 2026 CHARLES MCCHRISTIAN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH DIVISION V. [NO. 60CR-19-2151] HONORABLE LATONYA STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED MIKE MURPHY, Judge A Pulaski County Circuit Court jury convicted appellant Charles McChristian of second-degree sexual assault against his twelve-year-old cousin (MV). He was sentenced to a term of thirty years in the Arkansas Division of Correction. On appeal, McChristian does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence; rather, he argues that the court erred in allowing evidence under Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b) and in denying his motions for mistrial. We affirm. I. Relevant Facts and Procedural History McChristian was charged on May 17, 2019, with second-degree sexual assault. Before trial, McChristian filed a motion for disclosure of evidence the State intended to introduce at trial pursuant to Arkansas Rule of Evidence 404(b). The State responded and disclosed that it planned to call Christina Martin as a witness under Rule 404(b) and informed McChristian that she would testify that, beginning when she was in fifth or sixth grade, McChristian would engage in sexual intercourse with her and ejaculate on her. The proffer also stated that Martin would testify that McChristian is her uncle who is twelve years older than she is. The trial court ruled that the testimony would be permitted. Also, before trial, the parties appeared before the court to discuss whether Rule 404(b) evidence involving sexual misconduct with another girl, Kanesha Lee, would be permitted at trial. The State’s investigation revealed that McChristian began having sexual relations with her when she was twelve and subsequently fathered multiple children with her, which was confirmed by DNA evidence. The court permitted her to testify as well. On the morning of trial, McChristian asked the court for an “actual evidentiary hearing” on the question of Martin’s testimony. The parties debated the appropriateness of a hearing on the Rule 404(b) question. McChristian argued that without a hearing detailing Martin’s proposed testimony, he was unable to offer evidence that he could not have sexually assaulted Martin because he was not in Little Rock or North Little Rock when the assaults were alleged to have occurred. McChristian did not proffer what this evidence was. In addition, he argued that a hearing was needed to establish that the assaults of Martin were akin to what was alleged to have happened to MV, the minor cousin here. The trial court deferred ruling on the Rule 404(b) issue until “after the jury was situated and [it] had time to review a couple of cases.” After jury selection, the trial court denied the motion to exclude both Rule 404(b) witnesses. 2  At trial, MV testified that on June 13, 2018, she was twelve years old and at her grandmother’s house in North Little Rock. McChristian, who was forty-five-years-old, stopped by the house later in the day. At some point MV left the house with McChristian to “go get [grandma] some food.” But instead of going directly for food, McChristian drove to a park and stopped the car in a parking lot. After McChristian unsuccessfully tried to make a phone call, he and MV went to a nearby b