Ark. Code Ann. § 5-71-208 (2026)

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Notes, Constitutional Law — The Domestic Abuse Act of 1989 — An Impermissible Expansion of Chancery Jurisdiction. Bates v. Bates, 303 Ark. 89, 793 S.W.2d 788 (1990), 13 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 537.

Case Notes

In General.

Language in this section did not require the State to prove that a defendant's activities served no good purpose, but required the State to prove that, with purpose to harass, annoy, or alarm another person, without good cause, the defendant followed that person in or about a public place or engaged in conduct or repeatedly committed an act that alarmed or seriously annoyed another person and that served no legitimate purpose. Fennell v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 142 (2016).

Civil Remedies.

A plaintiff who alleged that her neighbors harassed her had a criminal remedy under this section and thus was not entitled to injunctive relief against her neighbors. Maxwell v. Sutton, 2 Ark. App. 359, 621 S.W.2d 239 (1981).

Evidence.

Where a juvenile directed comments at another student on the school bus without making any gestures, the evidence did not support his delinquency adjudication for harassment as the comment was not made in a manner likely to provoke a violent or disorderly response. Hunt v. State, 92 Ark. App. 342, 213 S.W.3d 667 (2005).

Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for first-degree stalking because there was a course of conduct of harassment based on the threats made to the victim. Weeks before the incident at issue, defendant forced the victim to have oral sex with him by threatening to tell her probation officers about prescriptions, and he threatened her that she would never see her son again. Van Winkle v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 591, 445 S.W.3d 542 (2014).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's harassment conviction under this section where the victims' testimony described their interactions with defendant, and the jury, based on that testimony, clearly thought that defendant did not have good cause or a legitimate purpose for his actions. Fennell v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 142 (2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's harassment conviction where the victim testified that defendant had grabbed her breast and she was upset about it, another witness testified that the victim was upset, and the jury was entitled to believe that testimony over defendant's self-serving testimony that he had meant no offense by touching the victim's breast. Rose v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 446, 558 S.W.3d 415 (2018).

Obscene Language.

Conviction for use of profane, violent or abusive language was improper where there was no determination by the trier of fact that the words spoken by the defendant were likely to arouse to immediate and violent anger the person to whom the words were addressed. Hammond v. Adkisson, 536 F.2d 237 (8th Cir. 1976) (decision under prior law).

Preservation for Review.

Challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a juvenile delinquency adjudication was not preserved for review where the dismissal motion did not address subdivision (a)(4) of this section, which was referenced in the State's petition, and defense counsel argued below that defendant had not committed harassment pursuant to subdivision (a)(1) or (a)(2) of this section, but counsel did not argue any deficiency with respect to the elements of either of those subdivisions or subdivision (a)(4). K.O. v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 5, 569 S.W.3d 344 (2019).

Separate Offenses.

Uttering vulgar or profane language at the domicile of another and making violent threats against him there with an intent to insult or terrify him were distinct offenses and could not be joined in the same indictment. State v. Lancaster, 36 Ark. 55 (1880) (decision under prior law).

Cited: Bates v. Bates, 303 Ark. 89, 793 S.W.2d 788 (1990); Kirkendoll v. State, 57 Ark. App. 321, 945 S.W.2d 400 (1997); Lemmond v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 390 (2012).