pedophile exception in Arkansas

2025The supreme court also applied the pedophile exception in Hernandez v. State, 331 Ark. 301 , 962 S.W.2d 756 (1998), and stated, “[T]he pedophile exception seems especially applicable in view of the evidence that Mr. Hernandez was attracted to the physical characteristics of young girls.” Id. at 308 , 962 S.W.2d at 760 .

2025The supreme court also applied the pedophile exception in Hernandez v. State, 331 Ark. 301 , 962 S.W.2d 756 (1998), and stated, “[T]he pedophile exception seems especially applicable in view of the evidence that Mr. Hernandez was attracted to the physical characteristics of young girls.” Id. at 308 , 962 S.W.2d at 760 .

2026For example, in Hamm v. State, 365 Ark. 647 , 232 S.W.3d 463 (2006), the testimony of a witness who observed concerning conduct involving the defendant and a child was admitted under the pedophile exception.

2026For example, in Hamm v. State, 365 Ark. 647 , 232 S.W.3d 463 (2006), the testimony of a witness who observed concerning conduct involving the defendant and a child was admitted under the pedophile exception.

2017Testimony at trial clearly established that their relationship with appellant was “close in friendship or acquaintance, familiar, near, or confidential.” Parish v. State, 357 Ark. 260, 270 , 163 S.W.3d 843, 849 (2004); see also Craigg, 2012 Ark. 387 , 424 S.W.3d 264 (recognizing an intimate relationship between the perpetrator and victims when the perpetrator held the position of a care-taking adult with attendant authority); Parish, 357 Ark. 260 , 163 S.W.3d 843 (concluding that the intimate-relationship factor of the pedophile exception was satisfied when the victim was an overnight guest in

2017Testimony at trial clearly established that their relationship with appellant was “close in friendship or acquaintance, familiar, near, or confidential.” Parish v. State, 357 Ark. 260, 270 , 163 S.W.3d 843, 849 (2004); see also Craigg, 2012 Ark. 387 , 424 S.W.3d 264 (recognizing an intimate relationship between the perpetrator and victims when the perpetrator held the position of a care-taking adult with attendant authority); Parish, 357 Ark. 260 , 163 S.W.3d 843 (concluding that the intimate-relationship factor of the pedophile exception was satisfied when the victim was an overnight guest in

1996However, we allow such evidence under a pedophile exception to show "similar acts with the same child or other children in the same household when it is helpful in showing a `proclivity toward a specific act with a person or class of persons with whom the accused has an intimate relationship.'" Free v. State, 293 Ark. 65, 71 , 732 S.W.2d 452, 455 (1987) (quoting White v. State, 290 Ark. 130 , 717 S.W.2d 784 (1986)).

1996However, we allow such evidence under a pedophile exception to show "similar acts with the same child or other children in the same household when it is helpful in showing a `proclivity toward a specific act with a person or class of persons with whom the accused has an intimate relationship.'" Free v. State, 293 Ark. 65, 71 , 732 S.W.2d 452, 455 (1987) (quoting White v. State, 290 Ark. 130 , 717 S.W.2d 784 (1986)).

2026We do not address arguments that are not supported by authority or convincing argument. 16 This court does not develop arguments for appellants.17 We have long recognized a pedophile exception to Rule 404(b). 18 We have approved allowing evidence of the defendant’s similar acts with the same or other children when it is helpful in showing a proclivity for a specific act with a person or class of persons with whom the defendant has an intimate relationship.19 The rationale behind this exception is that such evidence helps to prove the depraved sexual instinct of the accused.20 Also, Rule 404(b)

2026We do not address arguments that are not supported by authority or convincing argument. 16 This court does not develop arguments for appellants.17 We have long recognized a pedophile exception to Rule 404(b). 18 We have approved allowing evidence of the defendant’s similar acts with the same or other children when it is helpful in showing a proclivity for a specific act with a person or class of persons with whom the defendant has an intimate relationship.19 The rationale behind this exception is that such evidence helps to prove the depraved sexual instinct of the accused.20 Also, Rule 404(b)

2006In Berger, 343 Ark. 413 , 36 S.W.3d 286 , we explicitly rejected a requirement that the perpetrator and the victim must live in the same household, and in so doing we adopted the reasoning of the court of appeals in Brewer v. State, 68 Ark.App. 216 , 6 S.W.3d 124 (1999), which was that the pedophile exception was applicable if the victim was under the authority of the perpetrator or in his care.

2006In Berger, 343 Ark. 413 , 36 S.W.3d 286 , we explicitly rejected a requirement that the perpetrator and the victim must live in the same household, and in so doing we adopted the reasoning of the court of appeals in Brewer v. State, 68 Ark.App. 216 , 6 S.W.3d 124 (1999), which was that the pedophile exception was applicable if the victim was under the authority of the perpetrator or in his care.

2021Allen, 374 Ark. 309 , 287 S.W.3d 579 ; Bell v. State, 371 Ark. 375 , 266 S.W.3d 696 (2007). 11 Garcia had threatened to hurt her family.

2021Allen, 374 Ark. 309 , 287 S.W.3d 579 ; Bell v. State, 371 Ark. 375 , 266 S.W.3d 696 (2007). 11 Garcia had threatened to hurt her family.

2026We do not address arguments that are not supported by authority or convincing argument. 16 This court does not develop arguments for appellants.17 We have long recognized a pedophile exception to Rule 404(b). 18 We have approved allowing evidence of the defendant’s similar acts with the same or other children when it is helpful in showing a proclivity for a specific act with a person or class of persons with whom the defendant has an intimate relationship.19 The rationale behind this exception is that such evidence helps to prove the depraved sexual instinct of the accused.20 Also, Rule 404(b)

2021App. 564 , 566 S.W.3d 494 (holding that thirty-year-old evidence was admissible under the pedophile exception).

2018Specifically, in Lamb v. State , 372 Ark. 277 , 275 S.W.3d 144 (2008), our supreme court held that the pedophile exception applied when Lamb occupied a caregiver role for both the victim and witness and that the sexual act-oral sex-was identical.

2018Specifically, in Lamb v. State , 372 Ark. 277 , 275 S.W.3d 144 (2008), our supreme court held that the pedophile exception applied when Lamb occupied a caregiver role for both the victim and witness and that the sexual act-oral sex-was identical.

2023See, e.g., Mabry v. State, 2020 Ark. 72 , 594 S.W.3d 39 (holding that a gender difference between the witnesses and the victim does not prevent application of the pedophile exception when the acts are similar, even if not identical); Swift v. State, 363 Ark. 496 , 215 S.W.3d 619 (2005) (same).

2023See, e.g., Mabry v. State, 2020 Ark. 72 , 594 S.W.3d 39 (holding that a gender difference between the witnesses and the victim does not prevent application of the pedophile exception when the acts are similar, even if not identical); Swift v. State, 363 Ark. 496 , 215 S.W.3d 619 (2005) (same).

2012Even if the argument were preserved for appellate review, we would still affirm on the basis of the pedophile exception to Rule 404(b), which was discussed by our supreme court in Bell v. State, 371 Ark. 375, 385 , 266 S.W.3d 696, 704-05 (2007): Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is generally not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity with that | character trait.

2012Even if the argument were preserved for appellate review, we would still affirm on the basis of the pedophile exception to Rule 404(b), which was discussed by our supreme court in Bell v. State, 371 Ark. 375, 385 , 266 S.W.3d 696, 704-05 (2007): Evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts is generally not admissible to prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity with that | character trait.

2009The State nonetheless maintains that the documentary evidence of Kelley’s two prior convictions was admissible under the pedophile exception, citing to this court’s opinion in Flanery v. State, supra. In Flanery, this court affirmed a circuit court’s ruling allowing Rule 404(b) evidence pursuant to the pedophile exception despite the fact that the allegations of the victim of the charged rape included oral sex and sexual intercourse, while the Rule 404(b) witness alleged only inappropriate touching. 362 Ark. at 318 , 208 S.W.3d at 189 .

2009The State nonetheless maintains that the documentary evidence of Kelley’s two prior convictions was admissible under the pedophile exception, citing to this court’s opinion in Flanery v. State, supra. In Flanery, this court affirmed a circuit court’s ruling allowing Rule 404(b) evidence pursuant to the pedophile exception despite the fact that the allegations of the victim of the charged rape included oral sex and sexual intercourse, while the Rule 404(b) witness alleged only inappropriate touching. 362 Ark. at 318 , 208 S.W.3d at 189 .

2025This court’s pedophile exception to Rule 404(b) states that “evidence of similar acts with the same or other children is allowed to show a proclivity for a specific act with a person or class of persons with whom the defendant has an intimate relationship.” Smith v. State, 2016 Ark. 417, at 6 , 504 S.W.3d 595, 599 (emphasis added).

2025This court’s pedophile exception to Rule 404(b) states that “evidence of similar acts with the same or other children is allowed to show a proclivity for a specific act with a person or class of persons with whom the defendant has an intimate relationship.” Smith v. State, 2016 Ark. 417, at 6 , 504 S.W.3d 595, 599 (emphasis added).

2012Evidence is admissible pursuant to the pedophile exception to show “similar acts with the same child or other children in the same household when it is helpful in showing a ‘proclivity toward a specific act with a person or class or persons with whom the accused has an intimate relationship.’ ” Id. at 215 , 913 S.W.2d at 299 .

2012Evidence is admissible pursuant to the pedophile exception to show “similar acts with the same child or other children in the same household when it is helpful in showing a ‘proclivity toward a specific act with a person or class or persons with whom the accused has an intimate relationship.’ ” Id. at 215 , 913 S.W.2d at 299 .

2025Evid. 404(b). 9 Holland v. State, 2015 Ark. 341, at 7 , 471 S.W.3d 179, 184 (citing Fields v. State, 2012 Ark. 353 ). 10 Id. (citing Kelley v. State, 2009 Ark. 389 , 327 S.W.3d 373 ; Jeffries v. State, 2014 Ark. 239 , 434 S.W.3d 889 ; Eubanks v. State, 2009 Ark. 170 , 303 S.W.3d 450 ). 11 Id. (citing Fields, supra). 12 Id. (citing Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 ). 8 addition, evidence admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b) must not be too separated in time, making the evidence unduly remote.13 Finally, even if evidence falls into this exception, it is still subject to exclusion u

2025Evid. 404(b). 9 Holland v. State, 2015 Ark. 341, at 7 , 471 S.W.3d 179, 184 (citing Fields v. State, 2012 Ark. 353 ). 10 Id. (citing Kelley v. State, 2009 Ark. 389 , 327 S.W.3d 373 ; Jeffries v. State, 2014 Ark. 239 , 434 S.W.3d 889 ; Eubanks v. State, 2009 Ark. 170 , 303 S.W.3d 450 ). 11 Id. (citing Fields, supra). 12 Id. (citing Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 ). 8 addition, evidence admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b) must not be too separated in time, making the evidence unduly remote.13 Finally, even if evidence falls into this exception, it is still subject to exclusion u

2025Evid. 404(b). 9 Holland v. State, 2015 Ark. 341, at 7 , 471 S.W.3d 179, 184 (citing Fields v. State, 2012 Ark. 353 ). 10 Id. (citing Kelley v. State, 2009 Ark. 389 , 327 S.W.3d 373 ; Jeffries v. State, 2014 Ark. 239 , 434 S.W.3d 889 ; Eubanks v. State, 2009 Ark. 170 , 303 S.W.3d 450 ). 11 Id. (citing Fields, supra). 12 Id. (citing Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 ). 8 addition, evidence admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b) must not be too separated in time, making the evidence unduly remote.13 Finally, even if evidence falls into this exception, it is still subject to exclusion u

2025Evid. 404(b). 9 Holland v. State, 2015 Ark. 341, at 7 , 471 S.W.3d 179, 184 (citing Fields v. State, 2012 Ark. 353 ). 10 Id. (citing Kelley v. State, 2009 Ark. 389 , 327 S.W.3d 373 ; Jeffries v. State, 2014 Ark. 239 , 434 S.W.3d 889 ; Eubanks v. State, 2009 Ark. 170 , 303 S.W.3d 450 ). 11 Id. (citing Fields, supra). 12 Id. (citing Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 ). 8 addition, evidence admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b) must not be too separated in time, making the evidence unduly remote.13 Finally, even if evidence falls into this exception, it is still subject to exclusion u

2018"For the pedophile exception to apply, there must be a sufficient degree of similarity between the evidence to be introduced and the charged sexual conduct." Id.

2017Testimony at trial clearly established that their relationship with appellant was “close in friendship or acquaintance, familiar, near, or confidential.” Parish v. State, 357 Ark. 260, 270 , 163 S.W.3d 843, 849 (2004); see also Craigg, 2012 Ark. 387 , 424 S.W.3d 264 (recognizing an intimate relationship between the perpetrator and victims when the perpetrator held the position of a care-taking adult with attendant authority); Parish, 357 Ark. 260 , 163 S.W.3d 843 (concluding that the intimate-relationship factor of the pedophile exception was satisfied when the victim was an overnight guest in

2020In considering the majority’s reasoning, I must state that this case yet again raises concern for the current validity and future viability of the longstanding 1 See also Hortenberry v. State, 2017 Ark. 261, at 13 , 526 S.W.3d 840, 848 (“Under the pedophile exception, we have approved allowing evidence of similar acts with the same or other children when it is helpful in showing a proclivity for a specific act with a person or class of persons with whom the defendant has an intimate relationship.

2020In considering the majority’s reasoning, I must state that this case yet again raises concern for the current validity and future viability of the longstanding 1 See also Hortenberry v. State, 2017 Ark. 261, at 13 , 526 S.W.3d 840, 848 (“Under the pedophile exception, we have approved allowing evidence of similar acts with the same or other children when it is helpful in showing a proclivity for a specific act with a person or class of persons with whom the defendant has an intimate relationship.

2025Evid. 404(b). 9 Holland v. State, 2015 Ark. 341, at 7 , 471 S.W.3d 179, 184 (citing Fields v. State, 2012 Ark. 353 ). 10 Id. (citing Kelley v. State, 2009 Ark. 389 , 327 S.W.3d 373 ; Jeffries v. State, 2014 Ark. 239 , 434 S.W.3d 889 ; Eubanks v. State, 2009 Ark. 170 , 303 S.W.3d 450 ). 11 Id. (citing Fields, supra). 12 Id. (citing Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 ). 8 addition, evidence admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b) must not be too separated in time, making the evidence unduly remote.13 Finally, even if evidence falls into this exception, it is still subject to exclusion u

2025Evid. 404(b). 9 Holland v. State, 2015 Ark. 341, at 7 , 471 S.W.3d 179, 184 (citing Fields v. State, 2012 Ark. 353 ). 10 Id. (citing Kelley v. State, 2009 Ark. 389 , 327 S.W.3d 373 ; Jeffries v. State, 2014 Ark. 239 , 434 S.W.3d 889 ; Eubanks v. State, 2009 Ark. 170 , 303 S.W.3d 450 ). 11 Id. (citing Fields, supra). 12 Id. (citing Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 ). 8 addition, evidence admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b) must not be too separated in time, making the evidence unduly remote.13 Finally, even if evidence falls into this exception, it is still subject to exclusion u

2009We held that “[t]he trial court considered both the similarity of the prior conviction to the current charges of rape and incest and the parental relationship of Mosley with both of the victims and correctly applied Rule 404(b).” Id. at 473 , 929 S.W.2d at 695 .

2009We held that “[t]he trial court considered both the similarity of the prior conviction to the current charges of rape and incest and the parental relationship of Mosley with both of the victims and correctly applied Rule 404(b).” Id. at 473 , 929 S.W.2d at 695 .

2006In Berger, 343 Ark. 413 , 36 S.W.3d 286 , we explicitly rejected a requirement that the perpetrator and the victim must live in the same household, and in so doing we adopted the reasoning of the court of appeals in Brewer v. State, 68 Ark.App. 216 , 6 S.W.3d 124 (1999), which was that the pedophile exception was applicable if the victim was under the authority of the perpetrator or in his care.

2006App. 216 , 6 S.W.3d 124 (1999), which was that the pedophile exception was applicable if the victim was under the authority of the perpetrator or in his care.

2025Evid. 404(b). 9 Holland v. State, 2015 Ark. 341, at 7 , 471 S.W.3d 179, 184 (citing Fields v. State, 2012 Ark. 353 ). 10 Id. (citing Kelley v. State, 2009 Ark. 389 , 327 S.W.3d 373 ; Jeffries v. State, 2014 Ark. 239 , 434 S.W.3d 889 ; Eubanks v. State, 2009 Ark. 170 , 303 S.W.3d 450 ). 11 Id. (citing Fields, supra). 12 Id. (citing Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 ). 8 addition, evidence admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b) must not be too separated in time, making the evidence unduly remote.13 Finally, even if evidence falls into this exception, it is still subject to exclusion u

2025Evid. 404(b). 9 Holland v. State, 2015 Ark. 341, at 7 , 471 S.W.3d 179, 184 (citing Fields v. State, 2012 Ark. 353 ). 10 Id. (citing Kelley v. State, 2009 Ark. 389 , 327 S.W.3d 373 ; Jeffries v. State, 2014 Ark. 239 , 434 S.W.3d 889 ; Eubanks v. State, 2009 Ark. 170 , 303 S.W.3d 450 ). 11 Id. (citing Fields, supra). 12 Id. (citing Chunestudy v. State, 2012 Ark. 222 , 408 S.W.3d 55 ). 8 addition, evidence admitted pursuant to Rule 404(b) must not be too separated in time, making the evidence unduly remote.13 Finally, even if evidence falls into this exception, it is still subject to exclusion u

2025Accordingly, there was a gap of between one and five years between the videoing of MV in the shower 13 Id. (citing Brown v. State, 2012 Ark. 399 , 424 S.W.3d 288 ). 14 Holland, 2015 Ark. 341, at 8 , 471 S.W.3d at 185 (citing Hernandez v. State, 331 Ark. 301 , 962 S.W.2d 756 (1998)). 15 See Nelson v. State, 365 Ark. 314 , 229 S.W.3d 35 (2006); Holland, 2015 Ark. 341 , at 8–9, 471 S.W.3d at 185 ; Baumann v. State, 2018 Ark.

2025Accordingly, there was a gap of between one and five years between the videoing of MV in the shower 13 Id. (citing Brown v. State, 2012 Ark. 399 , 424 S.W.3d 288 ). 14 Holland, 2015 Ark. 341, at 8 , 471 S.W.3d at 185 (citing Hernandez v. State, 331 Ark. 301 , 962 S.W.2d 756 (1998)). 15 See Nelson v. State, 365 Ark. 314 , 229 S.W.3d 35 (2006); Holland, 2015 Ark. 341 , at 8–9, 471 S.W.3d at 185 ; Baumann v. State, 2018 Ark.

2025See Nelson v. State, 365 Ark. 314 , 229 S.W.3d 35 (2006); Holland, 2015 Ark. 341 , 471 S.W.3d 179 ; Baumann, 2018 Ark.

2025See Nelson v. State, 365 Ark. 314 , 229 S.W.3d 35 (2006); Holland, 2015 Ark. 341 , 471 S.W.3d 179 ; Baumann, 2018 Ark.

2026In Woods v. State, the court permitted evidence of the 20 defendant’s prior child-molestation conviction under the pedophile exception, even though the conviction occurred fifteen years before trial. 2013 Ark.

2026In Woods v. State, the court permitted evidence of the 20 defendant’s prior child-molestation conviction under the pedophile exception, even though the conviction occurred fifteen years before trial. 2013 Ark.