Anthony C. Fowlkes v. State of Arkansas

Summary

The court affirmed Fowlkes's convictions, holding that testimony about a different rape and battery was admissible because the similarities between the incidents made it independently relevant to Fowlkes's intent, motive, or plan. The court also held that Fowlkes failed to preserve his constitutional and evidentiary challenges to the exclusion of text messages and photographs because he did not raise those specific grounds below. A dissent would have excluded the other-acts testimony as impermissible propensity evidence.