Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-127 (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, 2003 Arkansas General Assembly, Criminal Law, Sexual Offenses, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 372.

Case Notes

Applicability.

Defendant convicted on a plea of nolo contendere to sexual misconduct was not entitled to an arrest of judgment even though § 5-14-107, the statute defining sexual misconduct as a criminal offense, had been repealed before he entered his plea of nolo contendere; the court could simply substitute the new offense of sexual assault in the fourth degree for the offense of sexual misconduct because the elements of the two were “basically the same.” Holt v. State, 85 Ark. App. 151, 147 S.W.3d 699 (2004).

Burden of Proof.

Appellant's sexual assault conviction under § 5-14-127(a)(3) was affirmed where his argument that he reasonably believed that the victim was older than 16 was an affirmative defense under § 5-14102(d)(1) and thus, the trial court properly concluded that he, rather than the State bore the burden of proof under§ 5-1-111(d)(1). Wright v. State, 98 Ark. App. 271, 254 S.W.3d 755 (2007).

Evidence.

There was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for sexual assault in the fourth degree arising out of sexual intercourse with child because she was under the age of sixteen, and defendant was at least 20 years old. White v. State, 370 Ark. 284, 259 S.W.3d 410 (2007).

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant under 18 U.S.C.S. § 2422(b) of attempting to persuade a minor to engage in sexual activity for which defendant could have been charged with a criminal offense, which under subdivision (a)(1) of this section and § 5-14-101(1)(A) included oral sex with a person under age 16; evidence was offered that defendant discussed sexual activity with a 15-year-old victim, and there was sufficient evidence to establish that defendant knew that the victim was under 16 given defendant's behavior indicating a consciousness of guilt, the victim's testimony, and the transcript of an online chat between defendant and a detective posing as the victim. United States v. Langley, 549 F.3d 726 (8th Cir. 2008).

Substantial evidence supported defendant's fourth-degree sexual assault conviction where the evidence was that the victim's sixteenth birthday was in October 2010, and the victim testified that she had a consensual-sexual relationship consisting of ten or more sexual encounters with defendant that started when she was a high school freshman and continued through her sophomore year, which would have been from the fall of 2009 until the fall of 2010 and into the spring of 2011. Moreover, defendant admitted that the relationship started slightly before the victim's sixteenth birthday. Sellers v. State, 2013 Ark. App. 210 (2013).

Defendant's appeal of the revocation of his probation was wholly without merit because he still owed restitution, the victim's testimony established the elements for fourth-degree sexual assault, the trial court rulings provided no possible grounds for reversal, and counsel fully complied with the Supreme Court's Rules for withdrawal. Stockton v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 300 (2014).

In a fourth-degree sexual assault case, defendant abandoned the issue of the sufficiency of the victim's testimony because he did not raise the issue in the circuit court; however, even if the argument had been preserved for review, the appellate court would have affirmed defendant's conviction because defendant was 20 years of age or older, the victim was 14 years old, and the two were not married; the victim testified that defendant pushed her against the pantry door, touched her buttocks, and kissed her on the mouth; the victim's testimony could constitute substantial evidence to sustain a conviction for sexual assault; and defendant's assertion on appeal that the victim was lying was not a ground for reversal. Echoles v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 352 (2017).

Relationship with Other Laws.

Section 5-14-110 prohibits the solicitation of conduct that is already criminal under Arkansas law, and offers to engage in illegal transactions enjoy no First Amendment protection. Neely v. McDaniel, 677 F.3d 346 (8th Cir. 2012), rehearing denied, — F.3d —, 2012 U.S. App. LEXIS 12159 (8th Cir. Ark. June 14, 2012).

Severance.

Trial court was not required to sever a charge for exposure to the Human Immuno-Deficiency Virus (HIV) under Ark. R. Crim. P. 22.2 because the exposure to HIV was committed as part of a single scheme with a sexual assault in the fourth degree. It was discretionary whether or not to sever under Rule 22.2(b)(i). White v. State, 370 Ark. 284, 259 S.W.3d 410 (2007).

Cited: Pratt v. State, 359 Ark. 16, 194 S.W.3d 183 (2004).