Cite as 2024 Ark. 162 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-24-349
Opinion Delivered: October 31, 2024
BELLOT DOUCOURE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST V. DIVISION [NO. 04CR-22-1443] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE ROBIN GREEN, JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice
Bellot Doucoure received life in prison after a jury convicted him of three counts of
raping a minor. The victim gave direct testimony at trial that Doucoure had raped her
around twenty times. Doucoure now challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the
circuit court’s decision to admit hearsay. We affirm (i) because the victim’s testimony alone
constituted substantial evidence to support the convictions and (ii) because the court did not
abuse its discretion when it allowed limited hearsay testimony after defense counsel had
“opened the door” to such an inquiry.
I. Factual Background
Doucoure was charged with and convicted of three counts of raping his minor child.
At trial, the victim testified that Doucoure had raped her many times. Doucoure told her
that his religion required him to have sex with her. The victim said Doucoure continued
raping her around twenty times. This occurred in multiple locations in their home. The victim testified that Doucoure did not wear a condom and wiped himself off
with the bed sheets. Scientific evidence was introduced to support this testimony—
Doucoure’s DNA was discovered on the victim’s bedsheets and the victim’s DNA was
discovered on the inner fly of Doucoure’s underwear. The victim also testified that she told
Doucoure she needed to see a therapist. A few days later, a “therapist” texted her. The
victim continued to communicate with this therapist via text messages. This “therapist” told
the victim she should continue having sex with Doucoure. On cross-examination, the
victim initially could not remember when these texts started. But phone records showed
the messages having begun in March 2022. The victim testified that she eventually came to
realize the “therapist” on the messages was Doucoure.
Courtney Doucoure testified. She was previously married to Doucoure. She
maintained a relationship with the victim and occasionally gave her rides home from
basketball games. During one of those rides, the victim disclosed that she had been “seeing”
a therapist but that she and the therapist only texted one another. Courtney testified that
the victim disclosed this in January 2022.
Connie Stave also testified at trial. She testified briefly on direct examination. She
worked at a church that the victim attended. Stave often drove the bus that picked up the
victim for church services, and the two became close. One day she went to lunch with the
victim and the victim made disclosures. On the basis of their conversation, Stave took the
victim to the Rogers Police Department.
On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Stave whether she had ever overheard
a phone conversation between the victim and Destiny Smith, “in which—in your opinion
2 that there was something going on between [Doucoure and the victim.]” Stave responded,
“[N]o. But I think I know what you’re getting at, but it’s not that I overheard a phone
conversation.” On redirect, the State asked Stave to elaborate on any conversation she’d
had with Destiny. Defense counsel objected based on hearsay. The circuit court limited
Stave’s response, ruling as follows: “Well, you . . . opened the door a little bit here I think.
So without getting into the particulars of exactly what was said in general, I’m going to
allow it. You opened the door.”
Stave then gave the following testimony about the conversation she had with Destiny
about concerns the victim had with Doucoure:
So basically Destiny pointed in the direction that she [victim] was uncomfortable around [Doucoure]. She felt like something—he was just making weird statements that were scaring her, making her uncomfortable, and I said well, Destiny, then you need to report that. And she was scared to do that, so I went out in the parking lot with Destiny and I took my cell phone and we called the hotline because, you know, it just needed to be reported.
And . . . I handed the phone—we set it on speaker phone—and Destiny told the hotline person basically what I just told you all. That [the victim] was uncomfortable—
At that point, the circuit court cut off Stave’s testimony. She answered a few more questions
on redirect and, after brief recross examination, did not testify further.
The jury returned a guilty verdict on all three rape charges. Doucoure has now filed
this appeal.
3 II. Law and Analysis
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Doucoure argues that the State failed to present substantial evidence to support each
rape conviction. He bases this on two areas of inconsistencies at trial and on the alleged
circumstantial evidence at trial. The inconsistencies involve whether the victim began
texting with the “therapist” in January 2022 or in March 2022 and the timing of when the
victim had intercourse with her boyfriend.
In addressing Doucoure’s sufficiency challenge, we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State and will affirm if substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial,
supported the verdict. See Kellensworth v. State, 2021 Ark. 5, at 4, 614 S.W.3d 804, 807. We
consider only evidence that supports the verdict. Hartman v. State, 2015 Ark. 30, at 5, 454
S.W.3d 721, 724. We do not reweigh the evidence presented at trial or assess the credibility
of the witnesses, as those are matters for the jury. See Fink v. State, 2015 Ark. 331, at 3, 469
S.W.3d 785, 787. The jury may believe all or part of any witness’s testimony and may
resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. Id. The testimony of a
rape victim, standing alone, is sufficient to support a conviction Estrada v. State, 2011 Ark.
3, at 5, 376 S.W.3d 395, 398.
We reject Doucoure’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. We only consider
evidence that is favorable to the jury’s verdict, and the jury was authorized to resolve any
perceived inconsistencies. The inconsistencies raised were not critical but go to Doucoure’s
overarching claim that we should disregard the victim’s entire testimony because the
perceived inconsistencies render her entire narrative “inherently improbable, physically
4 impossible, or so clearly unbelievable that reasonable minds could not differ about it.” See
Conte v. State, 2015 Ark. 220, at 16, 463 S.W.3d 686, 698. But this is not the role of this
court on appeal. The most pertinent evidence presented came from the victim’s own
testimony. She testified she was repeatedly raped. The jury was entitled to weigh all this
evidence and reach a conclusion whether she was credible.
And her firsthand account about the rapes is not circumstantial evidence but direct
testimony about what the victim “saw, heard, or experienced.” See Break v. State, 2022 Ark.
219, at 4, 655 S.W.3d 303, 307. Standing alone, her testimony constituted substantial
evidence to support the rape verdicts. We therefore affirm all three rape convictions.
B. Hearsay
Doucoure next argues that the circuit court should not have allowed Connie Stave
to testify about a conversation she had with Destiny Smith. Doucoure maintains that any
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2024 Ark. 162 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-24-349
Opinion Delivered: October 31, 2024
BELLOT DOUCOURE APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIRST V. DIVISION [NO. 04CR-22-1443] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE ROBIN GREEN, JUDGE
AFFIRMED.
RHONDA K. WOOD, Associate Justice
Bellot Doucoure received life in prison after a jury convicted him of three counts of
raping a minor. The victim gave direct testimony at trial that Doucoure had raped her
around twenty times. Doucoure now challenges the sufficiency of the evidence and the
circuit court’s decision to admit hearsay. We affirm (i) because the victim’s testimony alone
constituted substantial evidence to support the convictions and (ii) because the court did not
abuse its discretion when it allowed limited hearsay testimony after defense counsel had
“opened the door” to such an inquiry.
I. Factual Background
Doucoure was charged with and convicted of three counts of raping his minor child.
At trial, the victim testified that Doucoure had raped her many times. Doucoure told her
that his religion required him to have sex with her. The victim said Doucoure continued
raping her around twenty times. This occurred in multiple locations in their home. The victim testified that Doucoure did not wear a condom and wiped himself off
with the bed sheets. Scientific evidence was introduced to support this testimony—
Doucoure’s DNA was discovered on the victim’s bedsheets and the victim’s DNA was
discovered on the inner fly of Doucoure’s underwear. The victim also testified that she told
Doucoure she needed to see a therapist. A few days later, a “therapist” texted her. The
victim continued to communicate with this therapist via text messages. This “therapist” told
the victim she should continue having sex with Doucoure. On cross-examination, the
victim initially could not remember when these texts started. But phone records showed
the messages having begun in March 2022. The victim testified that she eventually came to
realize the “therapist” on the messages was Doucoure.
Courtney Doucoure testified. She was previously married to Doucoure. She
maintained a relationship with the victim and occasionally gave her rides home from
basketball games. During one of those rides, the victim disclosed that she had been “seeing”
a therapist but that she and the therapist only texted one another. Courtney testified that
the victim disclosed this in January 2022.
Connie Stave also testified at trial. She testified briefly on direct examination. She
worked at a church that the victim attended. Stave often drove the bus that picked up the
victim for church services, and the two became close. One day she went to lunch with the
victim and the victim made disclosures. On the basis of their conversation, Stave took the
victim to the Rogers Police Department.
On cross-examination, defense counsel asked Stave whether she had ever overheard
a phone conversation between the victim and Destiny Smith, “in which—in your opinion
2 that there was something going on between [Doucoure and the victim.]” Stave responded,
“[N]o. But I think I know what you’re getting at, but it’s not that I overheard a phone
conversation.” On redirect, the State asked Stave to elaborate on any conversation she’d
had with Destiny. Defense counsel objected based on hearsay. The circuit court limited
Stave’s response, ruling as follows: “Well, you . . . opened the door a little bit here I think.
So without getting into the particulars of exactly what was said in general, I’m going to
allow it. You opened the door.”
Stave then gave the following testimony about the conversation she had with Destiny
about concerns the victim had with Doucoure:
So basically Destiny pointed in the direction that she [victim] was uncomfortable around [Doucoure]. She felt like something—he was just making weird statements that were scaring her, making her uncomfortable, and I said well, Destiny, then you need to report that. And she was scared to do that, so I went out in the parking lot with Destiny and I took my cell phone and we called the hotline because, you know, it just needed to be reported.
And . . . I handed the phone—we set it on speaker phone—and Destiny told the hotline person basically what I just told you all. That [the victim] was uncomfortable—
At that point, the circuit court cut off Stave’s testimony. She answered a few more questions
on redirect and, after brief recross examination, did not testify further.
The jury returned a guilty verdict on all three rape charges. Doucoure has now filed
this appeal.
3 II. Law and Analysis
A. Sufficiency of the Evidence
Doucoure argues that the State failed to present substantial evidence to support each
rape conviction. He bases this on two areas of inconsistencies at trial and on the alleged
circumstantial evidence at trial. The inconsistencies involve whether the victim began
texting with the “therapist” in January 2022 or in March 2022 and the timing of when the
victim had intercourse with her boyfriend.
In addressing Doucoure’s sufficiency challenge, we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State and will affirm if substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial,
supported the verdict. See Kellensworth v. State, 2021 Ark. 5, at 4, 614 S.W.3d 804, 807. We
consider only evidence that supports the verdict. Hartman v. State, 2015 Ark. 30, at 5, 454
S.W.3d 721, 724. We do not reweigh the evidence presented at trial or assess the credibility
of the witnesses, as those are matters for the jury. See Fink v. State, 2015 Ark. 331, at 3, 469
S.W.3d 785, 787. The jury may believe all or part of any witness’s testimony and may
resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. Id. The testimony of a
rape victim, standing alone, is sufficient to support a conviction Estrada v. State, 2011 Ark.
3, at 5, 376 S.W.3d 395, 398.
We reject Doucoure’s challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. We only consider
evidence that is favorable to the jury’s verdict, and the jury was authorized to resolve any
perceived inconsistencies. The inconsistencies raised were not critical but go to Doucoure’s
overarching claim that we should disregard the victim’s entire testimony because the
perceived inconsistencies render her entire narrative “inherently improbable, physically
4 impossible, or so clearly unbelievable that reasonable minds could not differ about it.” See
Conte v. State, 2015 Ark. 220, at 16, 463 S.W.3d 686, 698. But this is not the role of this
court on appeal. The most pertinent evidence presented came from the victim’s own
testimony. She testified she was repeatedly raped. The jury was entitled to weigh all this
evidence and reach a conclusion whether she was credible.
And her firsthand account about the rapes is not circumstantial evidence but direct
testimony about what the victim “saw, heard, or experienced.” See Break v. State, 2022 Ark.
219, at 4, 655 S.W.3d 303, 307. Standing alone, her testimony constituted substantial
evidence to support the rape verdicts. We therefore affirm all three rape convictions.
B. Hearsay
Doucoure next argues that the circuit court should not have allowed Connie Stave
to testify about a conversation she had with Destiny Smith. Doucoure maintains that any
statements Destiny made were hearsay and should have been excluded. At trial, the circuit
court allowed Stave to recount the conversation because defense counsel had opened the
door on cross-examination.
We review a circuit court’s decision to admit or exclude evidence for an abuse of
discretion. Keesee v. State, 2022 Ark. 68, at 7, 641 S.W.3d 628, 635. We reverse only if the
court acted improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without due consideration. Bragg v. State, 2023
Ark. 66, at 7, 663 S.W.3d 375, 381. “[O]therwise inadmissible testimony may be offered
when one party has opened the door for another party to offer it.” Larimore v. State, 317
Ark. 111, 120, 877 S.W.2d 570, 574 (1994). This rule of “verbal completeness” allows the
jury to hear potentially inadmissible evidence to explain earlier testimony or to avoid
5 misleading them. See Gordon v. State, 326 Ark. 90, 98, 931 S.W.2d 91, 96 (1996) (Brown,
J., concurring).
Here, defense counsel elicited testimony from Connie Stave about her conversation
with Destiny about the victim. In response, Stave said she’d had no such conversation but
that she knew what counsel was “getting at.” The circuit court ruled that defense counsel’s
inquiry opened the door to limited additional testimony from Stave about that conversation.
The court strictly limited the extent of that testimony beforehand, ruling that Stave could
not testify about the “particulars” of the conversation. And when Stave’s testimony began
veering in that direction, the court sua sponte cut off the witness. Given the circuit court’s
ruling limiting the scope of Stave’s testimony and the court’s tight control of the witness’s
comments, we cannot find that the court acted improvidently, thoughtlessly, or without
due consideration. We therefore hold the circuit court did not abuse its discretion.
III. Rule 4-3(a) Review
In compliance with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(a), we have examined the
record for all objections, motions, and requests made by either party that the circuit court
decided adversely to the appellant. No prejudicial error has been found.
Dewitt & Daniels Law Firm, by: Joshua A. Daniels, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Christian Harris, Sr. Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.