Pedophile Exception Affirmed: Admissibility of Similar Acts and Evidence Sufficiency in Child Rape Cases

Introduction

In Hunter De La Garza v. State of Arkansas (2025 Ark. 10), the Supreme Court of Arkansas reviewed three principal issues arising from a Benton County Circuit Court jury verdict convicting Hunter De La Garza of rape and imposing a life sentence. De La Garza, a former youth‐care specialist at the Northwest Arkansas Children’s Shelter, was accused of sexually assaulting a ten‐year‐old resident during a one‐on‐one outing. On appeal, he argued:

That the evidence was legally insufficient to support the rape verdict.
That the trial court erred in admitting testimony from another minor under the so-called “pedophile exception” to Rule 404(b) of the Arkansas Rules of Evidence.
That certain prosecutorial remarks were prejudicial and warranted a mistrial or new trial.

The Supreme Court affirmed, clarifying the standards for sufficiency review, endorsing the pedophile exception, and setting strict limits on the preservation of prosecutorial-error claims.

Summary of the Judgment

The Court, writing through Associate Justice Cody Hiland, held:

Substantial evidence—including the minor victim’s direct testimony, behavioral changes, expert opinions on drawings, and the defendant’s inconsistent statements—supported the rape conviction beyond a reasonable doubt.
The trial court properly admitted testimony from a second child under the “pedophile exception” to Rule 404(b), given the high degree of similarity between the two assaults and the intimate supervisory relationship De La Garza had with both minors.
All alleged prosecutorial errors during the State’s case and closing argument were either unpreserved or, when objections were sustained, no further relief was sought. Nor did any recognized Wicks exception require sua sponte intervention by the trial judge.

Accordingly, the conviction and life sentence were affirmed in full.

Analysis

1. Precedents Cited

Ward v. State, 2023 Ark. 158: Defines the standard for reviewing challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence (motion for directed verdict treated as sufficiency challenge).
Doucoure v. State, 2024 Ark. 162 & Break v. State, 2022 Ark. 219: Confirm that a victim’s firsthand testimony is direct evidence and alone sufficient to support a rape conviction.
McPherson v. State, 2024 Ark. 163 & Hyatt v. State, 2018 Ark. 85: Authorize juries to consider implausible explanations and inconsistent statements as evidence of guilt.
Smith v. State, 2016 Ark. 417 & Parish v. State, 2004 Ark. 357: Articulate the “pedophile exception” to Rule 404(b), permitting evidence of similar acts against other children when there is an intimate relationship and a sufficient similarity of conduct.
Wicks v. State, 1980 Ark. 270: Establishes limited circumstances in which a trial court must intervene, even without objection, to correct serious trial errors.

2. Legal Reasoning

a. Sufficiency of the Evidence

• In reviewing a directed-verdict ruling, appellate courts view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State and affirm if “substantial evidence” supports the verdict. “Substantial evidence” must be more than speculative—it must reasonably compel a conclusion of guilt.
• The victim’s direct testimony describing forcible vaginal penetration by De La Garza satisfies that test. Additional proof came from her post-assault emotional dysregulation, self-harm, graphic drawings, and expert testimony interpreting those drawings as consistent with sexual abuse. • De La Garza’s multiple, conflicting accounts of the restroom encounter further fortified the jury’s finding of guilt.

b. Pedophile Exception to Rule 404(b)

• Rule 404(b) generally bars “other‐acts” evidence offered to show a defendant’s predisposition. However, the pedophile exception admits “similar acts with the same or other children” to demonstrate a proclivity for sexual misconduct when:

There is an “intimate relationship” (e.g., caregiver-child) between defendant and both victims.
The prior acts are sufficiently similar in nature, victim profile, and setting.

• Here, De La Garza worked one-on-one with both a six-year-old (Minor Witness) and a ten-year-old (Minor Victim) in private restrooms at the same shelter. In each instance, he manually or physically penetrated the child’s genital area. These parallels easily met the similarity and relationship requirements.

c. Prosecutorial Comments and Preservation Rules

• Arkansas law requires contemporaneous objections—and, if sustained, an immediate request for further relief—to preserve claims of improper prosecutorial conduct for appeal. • De La Garza failed to object at the first opportunity to several closing-argument remarks, and where objections were sustained, he did not seek admonitions or a mistrial. • The Court also declined to extend Wicks sua sponte-intervention exceptions to covering improper closing arguments.

3. Impact

This decision reinforces three key principles:

Victim testimony in child-rape cases remains powerful direct evidence; appellate courts will defer to jury credibility determinations when the evidence—viewed favorably to the State—is substantial.
The pedophile exception to Rule 404(b) is robust: prosecutors may introduce similar-acts evidence when the defendant enjoys a supervisory, trust-based relationship with multiple child victims and the conduct is materially alike.
Strict rules governing the preservation of prosecutorial-error claims remain in force: failure to object timely or to seek relief forfeits appellate review, and Wicks does not extend to unobjected-to remarks in closing argument.

Complex Concepts Simplified

Direct vs. Circumstantial Evidence: Direct evidence—like a victim’s eyewitness account—directly proves a fact. Circumstantial evidence relies on inference. Here, the victim’s testimony was direct.
Rule 404(b) — Other-Acts Evidence: Normally bars admission of bad-act evidence to show character. The “pedophile exception” is a narrow carve-out for sexual offenses against children.
Wicks Exception: A limited duty for trial judges to correct certain fundamental errors (e.g., twelve‐person jury rights) even without objection. It does not apply to improper closing arguments.
Burdens and Preservation: A party must object immediately to error and, if sustained, request a remedy (admonition or mistrial) or risk losing the issue on appeal.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court of Arkansas in Hunter De La Garza v. State of Arkansas reaffirms the high threshold for overturning rape convictions on sufficiency grounds, clarifies the scope of the pedophile exception to Rule 404(b), and underscores the importance of preserving prosecutorial-error claims. This decision will guide trial courts and litigants in child‐sexual‐abuse cases, ensuring that both complainant testimony and similar-acts evidence are properly weighed—and that procedural safeguards for objections are meticulously observed.