Full Opinion

Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 483 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CV-25-344 Opinion Delivered October 7, 2026 JAMES SMITH APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, SIXTH V. DIVISION [NO. 60CV-24-7419] JANE DOE APPELLEE HONORABLE TIMOTHY DAVIS FOX, JUDGE AFFIRMED MIKE MURPHY, Judge Appellant James Smith appeals from the Pulaski County Circuit Court’s judgment entered against him in a civil action brought by a crime victim pursuant to Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-118-107 (Repl. 2016). The circuit court awarded damages against Smith in the amounts of $9,397.67 for past medical expenses, $10,000 for future medical expenses, $2,500,000 for past and future pain and mental anguish, and $10,000,000 for punitive damages. On appeal, he argues the award of compensatory and punitive damages was entirely speculative and excessive because it was based on passion or prejudice, was shocking to the conscience, and violates due process. We affirm. Smith raped and sexually groomed his granddaughter, appellee Jane Doe, when she was between the ages of nine and thirteen.1 Smith was convicted by a jury of one count of sexually grooming a child and one count of rape, and this court affirmed his conviction on October 8, 2025. See Smith v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 472, 723 S.W.3d 653. On August 29, 2024, Doe filed this civil action against Smith. The court granted summary judgment in favor of her as to the issue of liability. A bench trial was held to determine damages on January 21, 2025. The court elicited testimony from Doe, her teacher, and her father regarding the past, present, and future impact Smith’s crimes have had and will have on her. At the close of Doe’s case-in-chief, Smith did not put on any witnesses. The circuit court then requested that posttrial briefs be submitted on the issue of damages and in place of closing arguments. It acknowledged that normally posttrial briefs are submitted simultaneously but that it would give Smith a week or so to respond. In an order entered on February 14, 2025, the circuit court awarded Doe compensatory and punitive damages. As a threshold matter, Doe contends that Smith’s argument is not preserved. A circuit judge may, “on motion for a new trial filed by the losing party,” find a judgment excessive. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-64-124 (Repl. 2005). A motion for a new trial “shall be filed not later than 10 days after the entry of judgment.” Ark. R. Civ. P. 59(b). 1 The minor victim, now an adult, proceeded in this case under the pseudonym Jane Doe. 2 Judgment below was entered on February 14, 2025. Smith did not file his motion until March 16, 2025, well past the ten-day deadline. Smith contends the “motion was deemed denied on April 16, 2025[.]” This is incorrect. There never was a motion for the court to deny because it was not timely filed under Arkansas Rule of Civil Procedure 59(b). In his reply brief, Smith concedes that the motion for new trial or remittitur is not before our court, but he says his argument is preserved because it was addressed in his posttrial brief. He directs us to an excerpt from the brief, but there he argued that the damages award was excessive and unsupported by substantial evidence, framed in terms of passion or prejudice. On appeal, Smith now enlarges that argument to say the award was also entirely speculative, shocked the conscience, and violated due process. An appellant is limited to the scope and nature of the arguments made below, and he cannot raise new arguments on appeal or add factual substantiation to the allegations made below. Von Holt v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 432, at 5, 585 S.W.3d 192, 196. None of these arguments were made to the circuit court before the motion for new trial. Even if we were to find that Smith preserved his argument, the circuit court did not expressly rule on it in the February order. We cannot presume a ruling from a circuit court’s silence, and we will not review a matter on which the circuit court has not ruled. Brookewood, Ltd. P’ship v. DeQueen Physical Therapy & Occupational Therapy, Inc., 2018 Ark. App. 204, at 12–13, 547 S.W.3d 461, 469 (holding where remittitur was not addressed below, it may not be argued on appeal even with respect to constitutional due-process concerns). Affirmed. 3 GLADWIN and THYER, JJ., agree. John Wesley Hall and Samantha J. Carpenter, for appellant. Scott Poynter and Clay Ellis, for appellee. 4