Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-124 (2026)

Research References

ALR.

Sufficiency of Allegations or Evidence of Serious Bodily Injury to Support Charge of Aggravated Degree of Rape, Sodomy, or Other Sexual Abuse. 103 A.L.R.6th 507 (2015).

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2001 Arkansas General Assembly, Criminal Law, 24 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 429.

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

Conviction for first-degree sexual assault did not violate the constitutional right to privacy because such protection was not extended to an adult's sexual relationship with a minor. Defendant and the victim began having sex when she was 15 years old; moreover, the State had an interest in protecting students from sexual advances from their teachers and school employees who had unique access to minors and were inherently viewed as authority figures. Akers v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 352, 464 S.W.3d 483 (2015).

Construction With Other Law.

Compared to subsection (a)(3) of this section, there is no language in the rape statute, § 5-14-103, regarding the terms, “temporary caretaker” or “person in a position of trust or authority,” and the State's proof is not the same. Murphy v. State, 83 Ark. App. 72, 117 S.W.3d 627 (2003).

Enhancement of Sentence.

Defendant's prior conviction for first-degree sexual abuse related to child exploitation and, thus, triggered the enhanced statutory minimum sentence of 15 years pursuant to the version of 18 U.S.C.S. § 2251(d) in effect at the time of defendant's conviction in 2003 because, even though the term “sexual exploitation of children” was not defined in § 2251, the term unambiguously referred to any criminal sexual conduct with a child; the conduct did not have to be photographed to qualify for enhancement. United States v. Smith, 367 F.3d 748 (8th Cir. 2004).

Evidence.

Evidence that a victim, who was a 14-year-old student of defendant, touched defendant on her breast was admissible in defendant's trial for first-degree sexual assault under this section because it was independently relevant and fell within the pedophile exception to Ark. R. Evid. 404(b); the incidents corroborated the victim's testimony and established that defendant had a proclivity to engage in sexual acts with minors with whom she had an intimate relationship. Bobo v. State, 102 Ark. App. 329, 285 S.W.3d 270 (2008), rehearing denied, — Ark. App. —, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Ark. App. LEXIS 533 (June 25, 2008), review denied, — Ark. —, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Ark. LEXIS 595 (Oct. 30, 2008).

Defendant was a close friend of the victim's family and the victim was frequently allowed to spend the night in defendant's home while visiting defendant's son; the evidence of defendant's close friendship with the victim's parents, and of their frequent entrustment of the victim to defendant's care and supervision, was sufficient to support the finding that defendant was a temporary caretaker or in a position of trust over the victim. Rasmussen v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 586 (2009).

Finding that defendant held a position of trust or authority over the victim was supported by evidence that defendant picked the victim up and took the victim home from horse training and by testimony of the victim's father that defendant was helping the victim with riding and learning about rodeo and that the father trusted defendant as the adult watching his daughter. Halliday v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 544, 386 S.W.3d 51 (2011).

Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for first-degree sexual assault because additional evidence that defendant utilized a position of trust and authority to engage in sex with a student was not required; this section was written in the disjunctive, so proof of any of the items listed was sufficient. Akers v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 352, 464 S.W.3d 483 (2015).

Illustrative Cases.

Homosexual defendants asserted they were simply social friends of the victim and could not be convicted under the “catch-all” language of former subsection (c) because they were not “temporary caretakers” or “in a position of trust or authority,” however, where defendants gave victim's parents assurances they would look after the victim and not engage in any homosexual activity with him, the jury properly determined defendants were in a position of trust or authority. Murphy v. State, 83 Ark. App. 72, 117 S.W.3d 627 (2003).

Defendant's conviction for first-degree sexual assault against a minor female was supported by sufficient evidence where defendant had a longstanding relationship with the minor as her instructor and with her parents, who trusted him to oversee her tae kwon do instruction and competitions, and her transportation home; a family friend to whom a minor is entrusted is in a position of authority or trust over that minor during the time of entrustment, and defendant's relationship could be characterized, at a minimum, to be that of a chaperone, which met the statutory threshold. May v. State, 94 Ark. App. 202, 228 S.W.3d 517 (2006).

In a case in which defendant was convicted of four counts of sexual assault of a minor, defendant fulfilled the role of temporary caretaker or person in a position of trust or authority under both this section and § 5-14-125, as defendant was in a position to care for the victim while the victim was staying overnight in defendant's home. Nelson v. State, 2011 Ark. 429, 384 S.W.3d 534 (2011).

Jury Instructions.

In a first-degree sexual assault case, there was no error in failing to give a jury instruction that required the jury to find that defendant held a position of trust and authority over the victim and utilized that position of trust and authority to influence her to have sex with him since proof of additional elements was not required. Akers v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 352, 464 S.W.3d 483 (2015).

Lesser-Included Offense.

Trial court did not abuse its discretion in refusing defendant's proffered jury instruction because first-degree sexual assault under subdivision (a)(1)(C) of this section is not a lesser-included offense of guardian rape under § 5-14-103(a)(4)(A)(i), as first-degree sexual assault contains an additional element that guardian rape does not—proof that the minor is not the actor's spouse; and even if first-degree sexual assault were a lesser-included offense, there would be no rational basis on which to allow the jury instruction because defendant claimed that he was innocent of the allegations. Matlock v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 470, 588 S.W.3d 152 (2019).

Cited: State v. Hayes, 366 Ark. 199, 234 S.W.3d 307 (2006).