Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-304 (2026)
Pandering or possessing visual or print medium depicting sexually explicit conduct involving a child
-
With knowledge of the character of the visual or print medium involved, no person shall do any of the following:
- Knowingly advertise for sale or distribution, sell, distribute, transport, ship, exhibit, display, or receive for the purpose of sale or distribution any visual or print medium depicting a child participating or engaging in sexually explicit conduct; or
- Knowingly solicit, receive, purchase, exchange, possess, view, distribute, or control any visual or print medium depicting a child participating or engaging in sexually explicit conduct.
-
Any person who violates subdivisions (a)(1) or (2) of this section is guilty of a:
- Class C felony for the first offense; and
- Class B felony for a subsequent offense.
History. Acts 1979, No. 499, § 4; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-4204; Acts 1991, No. 607, § 1.
Publisher's Notes. Acts 1991, No. 607, § 2, provided:
“It is the express intent of this act to eradicate the use of children as subjects of pornographic materials. This act seeks to protect victims of child pornography and to destroy a market for the exploitative use of children. The use of children as subjects of pornographic material is harmful to the physical and psychological health of children. Thus, this state has a compelling interest in penalizing those who solicit, receive, purchase, exchange, possess, view, distribute or control such material.
“Additionally, advertising, selling and distributing child pornography provides an economic motive for the production of such material. In penalizing the possession and marketing of child pornography, it is the intent of this act to significantly decrease production of, and demand for, the material.
“Similar legislation has been approved in several states and has been upheld by the United States Supreme Court. Osborne v. Ohio, 58 U.S.L.W. 4467 (U.S. April 18, 1990) (No. 88-5968); New York v. Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982). See also Ala. Code 13A-12-192 (1988); Ariz. Rev. Stat. Ann. 13-2552 (1989); Colo. Rev. Stat. 18-6-403 (Supp. 1989); Fla. Stat. 827.071 (1989); Ga. Code Ann. 16-12-100 (1989); Idaho Code 18-1507 (1987); Ill. Rev. Stat., ch. 38, P. 11-20-.1 (1987); Kans. Stat. Ann. 21-3516 (Supp. 1989); Minn. Stat. 617.247 (1988); Mo. Rev. Stat. 573.037 (Supp. 1989); Neb. Rev. Stat. 28-809 (1989); Nev. Rev. Stat. 200.730 (1987); Ohio Rev. Code Ann. 2907.322 and 2907.323 (Supp. 1989); Okla. Stat., Tit. 21, 1021.2 (Supp. 1989); S.D. Comp. Laws Ann. 22-22-23-1, 22-22-23.1 (1988); Tex. Penal Code Ann. 43.26 (1989 & Supp. 1989-1990); Utah Code Ann. 76-5a-3(1)(a) (Supp. 1989); Wash. Rev. Code 9.68A.070 (1989); W. Va. Code 61-8C-3 (1989).”
Research References
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Survey — Criminal Law, 14 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 753.
Case Notes
Evidence.
In a prosecution arising from the defendant's possession of videotapes of two 14 year old girls that included full frontal nudity, the evidence was sufficient to support a conviction, notwithstanding the defendant's assertion that the videotapes did not include sexually explicit conduct, since the scenes depicted on the videotapes were at the very least indecent and, therefore, “lewd” as contemplated by § 5-27-401(3). Gabrion v. State, 73 Ark. App. 170, 42 S.W.3d 572 (2001).
Where defendant possessed CD-ROMs showing a 14- and a 15-year-old girl dancing and posing provocatively in the nude, and the pictures were accompanied by labels characterizing the pictures in obscene terms, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of the knowing possession of a visual medium depicting a child engaging in sexually explicit conduct in violation of subdivision (a)(2). George v. State, 84 Ark. App. 275, 140 S.W.3d 492 (2003), rev'd, 358 Ark. 269, 189 S.W.3d 28 (2004).
Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's convictions of possession of visual or print medium depicting sexually explicit conduct where the images in defendant's possession constituted “sexually explicit conduct”; there were images containing the bare breasts of 14 year-old girls, and the girls were photographed in sexually suggestive positions. George v. State, 358 Ark. 269, 189 S.W.3d 28 (2004), cert. denied, George v. Arkansas, 543 U.S. 1163, 125 S. Ct. 1329 (2005).
Jurisdiction.
There was jurisdiction to try and convict defendant of pandering, pursuant to subsection (a) of this section, where he emailed photographs of himself, nude, and other minors engaging in sexual activities from his home in another state into an address in Arkansas; there was jurisdiction pursuant to § 5-1-104(a)(1) because defendant's conduct as well as the result of his conduct occurred within Arkansas, where the photos were received. Kirwan v. State, 351 Ark. 603, 96 S.W.3d 724 (2003).