Roderick Watkins v. State of Arkansas

2020 Ark. App. 506, 611 S.W.3d 245
CourtCourt of Appeals of Arkansas
DecidedNovember 4, 2020
StatusPublished

This text of 2020 Ark. App. 506 (Roderick Watkins v. State of Arkansas) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Court of Appeals of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Roderick Watkins v. State of Arkansas, 2020 Ark. App. 506, 611 S.W.3d 245 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020).

Opinion

Cite as 2020 Ark. App. 506 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS Reason: I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Date: 2021-07-19 13:14:02 Foxit PhantomPDF Version: DIVISION I 9.7.5 No. CR-20-189

RODERICK WATKINS Opinion Delivered: November 4, 2020

APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CLEBURNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT V. [NO. 12CR-18-263]

STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE TIM WEAVER, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

BART F. VIRDEN, Judge

Roderick Watkins appeals his conviction of four counts of second-degree sexual

assault contending that the Cleburne County Circuit Court erred by admitting the

testimony of witness Linda Dill. We affirm.

I. Relevant Facts

On November 21, 2018, Watkins was charged with four counts of second-degree

sexual assault of four minor children, AE, RJ, KO, and ZT. Watkins filed a motion in limine

seeking to prevent the State from presenting the testimony of Watkins’s neighbor, Linda

Dill. Watkins asserted that Dill’s testimony regarding Watkins’s interaction with an

unidentified child were not related to the allegations against him, and her testimony would

be both irrelevant and inadmissible character evidence. After a hearing on the motion, the

court agreed that Dill’s testimony was “of a different character” and more prejudicial than

probative. The State pursued the matter further and requested that the court revisit the issue if Dill could identify the child she saw Watkins with. The court agreed, and the trial

proceeded.

At the October 3, 2019 trial, multiple witnesses testified that Watkins, an elder in

their church whom they considered an authority figure and a mentor, sexually abused them

or touched and massaged them on their feet, legs, buttocks, back, and chest. ZT testified

that when he was a teenager, Watkins touched him on his buttocks twice. The first time,

in November 2010, Watkins touched ZT’s buttocks over his clothes at a football game,

with his father sitting near him in the stands. The second time, when he was seventeen years

old, Watkins touched ZT’s buttocks under his clothes while they and others were gathered

at a church member’s house to watch a basketball game.

KO testified that her father occasionally preached in Watkins’s church and that she

and her family had a friendly relationship with Watkins. She stated that Watkins was

physically affectionate and that he mentored her spiritually. KO explained that “if he told

me to do something, I would have done it.” In 2009, when she was nine years old, Watkins

touched her on her vaginal area while she sat on his lap with a blanket over them. Other

people, including her parents and sister, were in the room. AO, KO’s sister, testified that

Watkins also rubbed her vaginal area while she sat in his lap with a blanket over them. She

explained that first he rubbed her back and legs, then he “reached down my pants and started

rubbing my private area, my vagina.” Again, other people were in the room when the abuse

occurred, and AO explained that Watkins even conversed with her father as he was sexually

abusing her “as if nothing was wrong.” AO also stated that she considered Watkins a mentor.

AE, a thirteen-year-old boy who also attended the same church testified that Watkins

had been a mentor to him and had babysat him. AE testified that once, while he was 2 watching a movie at Watkins’s apartment, Watkins ran his hand up his leg and touched his

penis. AE stated that before this incident, Watkins had rubbed his back, feet, and legs.

CJ, who was seventeen at the time of the trial, testified that Watkins had been like a

grandfather to him, they took trips together, and he had slept at Watkins’s house many

times. CJ stated that six or seven years before the trial Watkins sexually abused him. CJ

testified that Watkins began by rubbing his feet and legs and then worked his way up to his

genitals, at which point CJ pushed Watkins’s hands away. CJ stated that he had seen Watkins

put his hands inside his cousin RJ’s shorts and rub his back “more than ten times.” MJ, CJ’s

sister, stated that she, too, had been abused by Watkins, who had put his hand on her thigh

under her dress while she was a passenger in his car and that he had put his hand over her

underwear close to her vaginal area. When she was ten or eleven years old, Watkins had

come into the bathroom when she was showering, opened the curtain, and watched her in

the shower while he shaved. She also testified that she had seen Watkins rub RJ’s feet, legs,

and back under his shirt.

RJ testified that his family and Watkins attended the same church and that before his

sexual abuse was known, they had a close relationship. RJ explained that Watkins was like

a grandfather to him and that he saw Watkins about twice a week when they lived in Heber

Springs, often at Watkins’s home. RJ stated that he had helped Watkins clean, do chores,

and maintain the apartment complex Watkins lived in and that he had frequently slept at

Watkins’s house. RJ explained that he could not remember before the age of ten, but that

the first instance of abuse occurred around then. RJ described Watkins’s abuse, explaining

that at first, Watkins would rub his back, then “creep downward” and “[a]t some point, he

touched me underneath my clothes.” Watkins touched his buttocks, penis, and testicles. RJ 3 stated that the incidents blended together, and “it was hard to differentiate one from the

other.” RJ explained that he did not know he was being abused at the time, and he believed

the behavior was normal.

RJ’s father, Joseph, also testified that his family and Watkins attended the same

church and that his family had been very close with Watkins. Joseph stated that Watkins

was an authority figure and like a grandfather to RJ and that RJ had frequently spent time

alone with Watkins, helping him with chores around Watkins’s apartment, including

painting and gardening. Joseph testified that RJ had been in therapy for behavioral issues

since he was around seven or eight years old. About a year before the trial, after Watkins

was “disfellowshipped” from the church, RJ told his parents that Watkins had sexually

abused him. Joseph explained that he had never seen Watkins abuse RJ but that he recalled

having seen Watkins scratch RJ low on his back, his legs, inside his thighs and arms, and

“down his back and into his shorts of underwear. I never saw it as too far but just

questionable.” Marissa Pett, also a member of the same church, testified that in August 2016,

when RJ was around thirteen years old, she saw Watkins absentmindedly running his hand

up and down RJ’s inner thigh. RJ’s aunt testified that she had seen Watkins rub and touch

RJ under his shirt.

During the witnesses’ testimony, the State informed the court that Dill stated she

would recognize the child she saw with Watkins in the apartment across from her, and she

described him as having a slight build, dark hair, and glasses. Dill was taken to the witness

room, and she identified RJ among the people gathered there as the child she had seen with

Watkins at her apartment complex. Watkins responded that Dill did not witness anything

criminal; thus, her testimony was prejudicial and did not have probative value. The State 4 asserted that Dill’s testimony would describe the same type of grooming and preparatory

conduct that the previous witnesses had described. The court ruled that Dill was a fact

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

Hortenberry v. State
2017 Ark. 261 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2017)
Hicks v. State
2017 Ark. 262 (Supreme Court of Arkansas, 2017)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
2020 Ark. App. 506, 611 S.W.3d 245, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/roderick-watkins-v-state-of-arkansas-arkctapp-2020.