Supreme Court orders judge to review evidence in sex abuse case

FAYETTEVILLE -- The Arkansas Supreme Court today ordered a Washington County circuit judge to determine if a confidential state Department of Human Services file could be the basis for a new trial.

Chris Beason Taffner, 57, was found guilty in March 2016 of two counts of rape involving a girl younger than 14 and three counts of sexual assault.

The jury recommended sentences of 40 years on each of the rape charges and 20 years on each sexual assault charge. Circuit Judge Mark Lindsay ordered the sentences to be served consecutively at the Arkansas Department of Correction for a total of 140 years.

Two of the girls were 13 at the time of the assaults and the other was 14, according to prosecutors. The assaults came to light in January 2015.

The high court ruled in a majority opinion that Taffner should have been allowed access to information in the file that might indicate one of the girls who testified against him made false statements of sexual abuse in the past.

The court ordered Lindsay to review the file privately on remand, determine if it contains evidence that would be material to Taffner's defense or would change the outcome of the trial and, if so, order a new trial.

If Lindsay finds nothing in the file that would change the outcome, he can allow the convictions and judgment to stand with no further action.

Dissenting members of the court said Taffner should be entitled to a new trial because the information in the file was central to his defense argument that the girl had a history of lying about sexual abuse.

The dissent also listed several other reasons Taffner should be given a new trial, including a trial court ruling that limited the ability to cross-examine the girl about previous untrue accusations of sexual abuse involving another man and the court's refusal to allow that man to testify about the girl's allegations.

The majority of the court concluded the man should have been allowed to testify but that the judge's ruling did not hurt Taffner's defense.

A dissenting opinion said Taffner should be entitled to a new trial because a witness concealed the fact she had been a court-appointed child advocate in juvenile court proceedings in the past.

NW News on 03/30/2018

Upcoming Events