Milton Beltran v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. 167

• Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas
• Decided: October 30, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. 167 SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS No. CR-24-821

Opinion Delivered: October 30, 2025 MILTON BELTRAN APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAWFORD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 17CR-23-407] V. HONORABLE MARC R. MCCUNE, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE AFFIRMED.

CODY HILAND, Associate Justice

Milton Beltran was convicted by a Crawford County jury of six counts of rape, for

which he received a sentence of life imprisonment on each count. On appeal, Beltran argues

that the circuit court abused its discretion by allowing testimony from three witnesses that

impermissibly bolstered the victim’s credibility with the jury. This argument is not properly

preserved for appeal. We affirm.

In January 2023, the minor victim (MV) disclosed to her parents that her stepfather,

Milton Beltran, had been raping her for several years. Immediately after MV’s disclosure,

her father took her to speak to Lee Kurebayashi, an elder for the Jehovah’s Witnesses

community, who advised them to contact the local authorities. Following the report, Chase

DeCroo of the Van Buren Police Department was assigned to investigate. The information

was conveyed to both law enforcement and Hamilton House, and Alondra Lopez with the

Arkansas State Police Crimes Against Children Division was charged with determining

whether the allegations substantiated placement of Beltran on the Child Maltreatment Central Registry. Eventually, formal charges were filed, and a jury trial took place in August

2024.

After a myriad of witnesses testified on behalf of both the State and Beltran––MV

herself included––the jury returned a guilty verdict on all six counts. Now, on appeal,

Beltran challenges the admission of testimony of the three aforementioned witnesses––Lee

Kurebayashi, Chase DeCroo, and Alondra Lopez. His sole argument is that the circuit court

abused its discretion by allowing the State to use these three witnesses to impermissibly

“bolster” MV’s credibility. However, because his argument was not raised below, it is not

preserved for appeal.

While it is true that objections need not cite specific rules to be sufficient, this court

has made clear that a specific evidentiary objection is necessary in order to preserve an issue

for appeal. See, e.g., Gilliand v. State, 2010 Ark. 135, at 10, 361 S.W.3d 279, 285 (2010).

To preserve an argument for appeal, there must be an objection to the circuit court that is

sufficient to apprise the court of the particular evidentiary error alleged, and the appellate

court will not address evidentiary arguments raised for the first time on appeal. Id. A party

cannot change the grounds for an objection or motion on appeal but is bound by the scope

and nature of the arguments made at trial. Id.

In this case, it is apparent that Beltran did not raise a specific objection to any of the

three witnesses, nor did he argue that the testimony impermissibly established or bolstered

MV’s credibility. During his testimony, Kurebayashi stated that, based on his training as a

clergy, he has “learned how to know when somebody’s telling the truth most of the time.”

This drew the only objection made by Beltran: “Your Honor, I’m going to object to this.”

2 The objection was sustained, and Beltran offered no further argument as to specificity. This

singular generalized objection is not enough to preserve his argument for appeal.

Regarding Lopez’s testimony, Beltran objected that her finding of “true” for

purposes of Beltran’s placement on the registry was not relevant. This is not the same

argument he now makes on appeal. Beltran is bound by the argument made below and

cannot change his grounds for objection now.

Finally, his argument regarding DeCroo’s testimony is that the term “corroborate”

impermissibly established MV’s credibility. Not only did Beltran fail to object to the use of

“corroborate” during the trial, he also specifically used the same word on numerous

occasions in his own cross-examination. Because Beltran made no objection whatsoever,

this argument is obviously not preserved, and we decline to address it for the first time on

appeal. See, e.g., Davis v. State, 368 Ark. 401, 409, 246 S.W.3d 862, 869 (2007) (Evidentiary

issues must be presented to the circuit court in order to be preserved for appeal, and we will

not address arguments that are raised for the first time on appeal.)

Because Beltran received a life sentence, the record has been examined for all

objections, motions, and requests made by either party that were decided adversely to

Beltran in compliance with Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 4-3(a), and no other prejudicial

error was found.

Affirmed.

Lisa-Marie Norris, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Jacob Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.