Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-122 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Notes.

Sheppard, Arkansas 1, Texas 0: Sodomy Law Reform and the Arkansas Law, 2003 Arkansas L. Notes 87.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Barrier, Render Unto Caesar: An Essay on Private Morals and Public Law, 4 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 511.

Arkansas Law Survey, Jeffrey, Nelson, Nunnally and Robertson, Constitutional Law, 7 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 179.

Note: Constitutional Law-Privacy and Equal Protection-Arkansas Joins Other States in a Revival of State Constitutions as Guardians of Individual Rights, Establishing New Protections for Arkansas Gays and Lesbians,Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600, 80 S.W.3d 332 (2002), 25 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 681.

Comment, Arkansas's Entry into the Not-So-New Judicial Federalism, 25 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 835.

Annual Survey of Caselaw, Constitutional Law, 25 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 905.

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

Former statute providing penalty for sodomy was not too vague and too broad in scope, nor did it establish a religion because it regulated acts regarded as sinful by some religious groups. Connor v. State, 253 Ark. 854, 490 S.W.2d 114, appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 991, 94 S. Ct. 342, 38 L. Ed. 2d 230 (1973) (decision under prior law).

Enforcement as to defendant of former statute providing penalty for sodomy did not violate any constitutional right of privacy where act was not committed in privacy but in an automobile on a public road adjacent to an interstate highway. Connor v. State, 253 Ark. 854, 490 S.W.2d 114, appeal dismissed, 414 U.S. 991, 94 S. Ct. 342, 38 L. Ed. 2d 230 (1973) (decision under prior law).

Former section which provided penalty for sodomy when applied to convict two consenting adults of sodomy did not constitute a violation of defendants' rights to privacy or rights under either federal or state constitutions. Carter v. State, 255 Ark. 225, 500 S.W.2d 368 (1973), cert. denied, Carter v. Arkansas, 416 U.S. 905, 94 S. Ct. 1610 (1974) (decision under prior law).

Statute which clearly prohibited “sodomy” and “buggery” was not subject to constitutional attack on the grounds of vagueness, even though the statute did not specifically name fellatio, since the conduct for which defendant was convicted had long been held to be prohibited and defendant was placed on notice that his behavior was illegal. Connor v. Hutto, 516 F.2d 853 (8th Cir. 1975), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 929, 96 S. Ct. 278 (1975) (decision under prior law).

Where a male defendant was convicted of sodomy under this section for engaging in oral sex with another male in a restroom in a public park, the conviction did not violate the defendant's constitutional right to privacy since the defendant had no privacy right to perform such acts in public. United States v. Lemons, 697 F.2d 832 (8th Cir. 1983).

Application of this section to public sexual activity between two members of the same sex did not violate the equal protection rights of homosexuals, because a heterosexual couple engaging in the same act would be guilty of public sexual indecency under § 5-14-111, and would be subject to the exact same penalty. United States v. Lemons, 697 F.2d 832 (8th Cir. 1983).

As circuit courts have exclusive jurisdiction over criminal prosecutions, an action seeking a declaration that the criminal sodomy statute is unconstitutional could only be heard in the circuit court. Bryant v. Picado, 338 Ark. 227, 996 S.W.2d 17 (1999) (decision under prior law).

This section is unconstitutional as applied to private, consensual, noncommercial, same-sex sodomy in that it infringes upon the fundamental right to privacy implicit in the Arkansas Constitution. Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600, 80 S.W.3d 332 (2002) (decision under prior law).

This section is unconstitutional as applied to private, consensual, noncommercial, same sex sodomy in that it impermissibly criminalized conduct solely on the basis of the sex of the participants in violation of Arkansas's Equal Rights Amendment, Ark. Const., Art. 2, § 8. Jegley v. Picado, 349 Ark. 600, 80 S.W.3d 332 (2002) (decision under prior law).

Evidence.

Where statute in a prosecution for sodomy required proof of actual penetration to sustain the charge, proof of the boy's injured condition was admissible to establish penetration. Havens v. State, 217 Ark. 153, 228 S.W.2d 1003 (1950) (decision under prior law).

Since the crime of sodomy could be proven by circumstantial evidence, no higher degree of evidence was required in corroborating the testimony of an accomplice than was required for conviction. Burford v. State, 242 Ark. 377, 413 S.W.2d 670 (1967) (decision under prior law).

Force.

Where defendant argued that since the jury found the codefendant guilty of sodomy, a crime which does not require force, and since the codefendant was the one who committed the sexual acts, a finding that defendant used force to commit a sexual act was an inconsistent verdict, the jury could have found that defendant was the more culpable of the two defendants where he was the one who actually used a knife to force the victim to submit to the sexual acts. Young v. State, 296 Ark. 394, 757 S.W.2d 544 (1988).

Separate Offenses.

Prosecution in the justice of the peace court for assault and disturbing the public peace could not constitute former jeopardy in prosecution for sodomy, as there was no relation between the misdemeanors of assault and disturbing the peace and the felony of sodomy. Verser v. State, 256 Ark. 609, 509 S.W.2d 299 (1974) (decision under prior law).