Any person eighteen (18) years of age or older who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any child to engage in or who has a child assist any other person to engage in any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual or print medium depicting the sexually explicit conduct is guilty of a:
Class B felony for the first offense; and
Class A felony for a subsequent offense.
Any parent, legal guardian, or person having custody or control of a child who knowingly permits the child to engage in or to assist any other person to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual or print medium depicting the sexually explicit conduct is guilty of a:
Amendments.
The 2013 amendment inserted “eighteen (18) years of age or older” in (a).
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.
Survey of Legislation, 2003 Arkansas General Assembly, Criminal Law, Computer Crimes, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 361.
Case Notes
Evidence.
Substantial evidence existed from which the jury could conclude that defendants, husband and wife, permitted their child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for the use in visual or print medium and that defendant husband produced, directed, or promoted a sexual performance; the videotapes showed full frontal nudity of the child, who was no more than 13 years old, and the scenes depicted were lewd. Cummings v. State, 353 Ark. 618, 110 S.W.3d 272 (2003).
Trial court did not err in permitting the state to introduce videotapes depicting defendant engaged in sexual acts with his victims and with each other because the video footage was relevant to proving the elements of both the charges of rape and the charges of engaging children in the production of child pornography and because it could not be said that the video served no valid purpose other than to inflame the passions of the jury.
Williams v. State, 374 Ark. 282, 287 S.W.3d 559 (2008), rehearing denied, — Ark. —, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Ark. LEXIS 589 (Oct. 30, 2008).
Where defendant was charged with numerous counts of rape and engaging children in the production of child pornography, the probative value of a DVD depicting defendant engaged in sexual contact with the young boys was not substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice because the state had the burden of proving the elements of all of the charges against defendant and because the state was entitled to prove the elements of the charges with its best evidence and the videos were certainly the state's best evidence.
Williams v. State, 374 Ark. 282, 287 S.W.3d 559 (2008), rehearing denied, — Ark. —, — S.W.3d —, 2008 Ark. LEXIS 589 (Oct. 30, 2008).
Producing.
The comma after the word “advertising” in § 5-27-302(3) means that “for pecuniary profit” (deleted from the end of (3) in 1995) is a required element of proof of “producing” as that term is used in this section. Richardson v. State, 314 Ark. 512, 863 S.W.2d 572 (1993) (decision under prior law).
Where defendant was convicted of engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for use in visual or print medium, counsel was not ineffective for failing to make an argument that defendant was not producing materials for “pecuniary profit” as that was no longer a required element of the charge against defendant.
Smith v. State, 367 Ark. 611, 242 S.W.3d 253 (2006).
Cummings v. State, 110 S.W.3d 272 (Ark. 2003). · cites it 30דThe appellants argue that: (1) the trial court erred by denying a motion to suppress evidence obtained through the execution of a nighttime search; (2) there is not sufficient evidence to support the verdict; (3) Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-303 (b) (Repl. 1997) is a lesser-included…”
Richardson v. State, 863 S.W.2d 572 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 12דAppellant was also found guilty of one count of engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for use in visual or print medium in violation of Ark.Code Ann. § 5-27-303 (1987). Appellant was sentenced to forty (40) years imprisonment for each rape charge and ten (10) years…”
Smith v. State, 215 S.W.3d 626 (Ark. 2005). · cites it 12דHe alleges that Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-303 (Supp. 2003) is unconstitutionally vague as applied to the facts of this case.”
Terry E. Break v. State of Arkansas, 2022 Ark. 219 (Ark. 2022). · cites it 4ד]” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-303 (a) (Repl. 2013) (amended 2013).”
Williams v. State, 287 S.W.3d 559 (Ark. 2008). · cites it 4דArk. Code Ann. § 5-27-303 (Repl. 2006). “Producing” is defined as “producing, directing, manufacturing, issuing, publishing or advertising.”
George v. State, 189 S.W.3d 28 (Ark. 2004). · cites it 2ד3d 272 (2003), we held that there was sufficient evidence to support Cummings’s conviction of permitting his child to engage in sexually explicit conduct for use in visual or print medium, a violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-303 (b). In Cummings, we cited with approval the…”
Graham v. State, 861 S.W.2d 299 (Ark. 1993). · cites it 2דSection 5-27-303 (a) provides that: Any person who employs, uses, persuades, induces, entices, or coerces any child to engage in, or who has a child assist any other person to engage in, any sexually explicit conduct for the purpose of producing any visual or print medium…”
Wickham v. State, 324 S.W.3d 344 (Ark. 2009). · cites it 2ד2006), eighteen counts of engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for use in visual or print medium in violation of Ark.Code Ann. § 5-27-303 (Repl.2006), and eighteen counts of possessing visual or print medium depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child in…”
Smith v. State, 242 S.W.3d 253 (Ark. 2006). · cites it 6דIn his motion, appellant argues that the statute under which he was charged, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-303 (a) (2003), includes a required element that the criminal act be for pecuniary profit.”
W.J.S. v. State, 495 S.W.3d 649 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016). “5-14-103; (2) Sexual assault in the first degree, § 5-14-124; (3) Sexual' assault in the second degree, § 5-14-125; |a(4) Incest, § 5-26-202; or (5) _ Engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for use in visual or print medium, § 5-27-303. (b)(1) The court may order a sex…”
James Woods v. State of Arkansas, 2025 Ark. 9 (Ark. 2025). · cites it 2דAdditionally, Woods’s comments to Detective Parnell that he knew the videos “didn’t have [Woods’s] face” and that it “was not [Woods’s] idea from the beginning” established that Woods had knowledge of not only the videos on his phone but also the circumstances surrounding the…”
Fountain v. State, 285 S.W.3d 706 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008). “…(g) Incest, § 5-26-202; (h) Engaging children in sexually explicit conduct for use in visual or print medium, § 5-27-303; (i) Transportation of minors for prohibited sexual conduct, § 5-27-305; (j) Employing or consenting to use of a child in a sexual performance, §…”
Cummings v. State, 110 S.W.3d 272 (Ark. 2003). “The appellants argue that: (1) the trial court erred by denying a motion to suppress evidence obtained through the execution of a nighttime search; (2) there is not sufficient evidence to support the verdict; (3) Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-303 (b) (Repl. 1997) is a lesser-included…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-303(b) — 1 case
Cummings v. State, 110 S.W.3d 272 (Ark. 2003). “The appellants argue that: (1) the trial court erred by denying a motion to suppress evidence obtained through the execution of a nighttime search; (2) there is not sufficient evidence to support the verdict; (3) Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-303 (b) (Repl. 1997) is a lesser-included…”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.