Harrison v. State, No. CACR08-102 (Ark. App. 10/8/2008)

• Decision Date: 08 October 2008
• Docket Number: No. CACR08-102,CACR08-102
• Parties: Bobby Dean HARRISON Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas Appellee
• Court: Arkansas Court of Appeals

Page 1

Bobby Dean HARRISON Appellant v. STATE of Arkansas Appellee

No. CACR08-102

Court of Appeals of Arkansas, Division I.

Opinion Delivered October 8, 2008.

Appeal from the Saline County Circuit Court, [No. CR07-75-2], Honorable Grisham Phillips, Judge.

Affirmed.

LARRY D. VAUGHT, Judge.

Appellant Bobby Dean Harrison was convicted of internet stalking of a child and was sentenced to eight years' imprisonment. On appeal he argues that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he attempted to arrange a meeting with an individual whom he believed to be a fourteen-year-old girl. Specifically, he claims that a police officer (posing as the young girl) initiated the in-person encounter. Based on these claims, Harrison tendered two, timely, directed-verdict motions. Both were denied, and finding no error in the trial court's decision to deny these motions, we affirm Harrison's conviction.

A motion for directed verdict is treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Baughman v. State, 353 Ark. 1, 110 S.W.3d 740 (2003). In determining if the evidence is sufficient, we view it in a light most favorable to the State. Id. Only evidence that supports the conviction will be considered on appeal, and the conviction will be affirmed if it is supported by substantial evidence. Stone v. State, 348 Ark. 661, 74 S.W.3d 591 (2002). Substantial evidence is evidence that will compel a conclusion without conjecture. Id.

A person commits internet stalking if he is twenty-one years or older and knowingly uses an internet service to seduce, solicit, lure, or entice an individual who he believes is fifteen years old or younger in an effort to arrange a meeting for the purpose of engaging in sexual intercourse, sexually explicit conduct, or deviate sexual activity as defined by the Arkansas General Assembly. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-306(a)(2) (Repl. 2006). "The gravamen of soliciting a crime is in the urging." Heape v. State, 87 Ark. App. 370, 375, 192 S.W.3d 281, 285 (2004) (holding that evidence was sufficient to show that the defendant intended his remarks to solicit sex with fourteen-year-old victim).

Here, the evidence supporting the guilty verdict is ample to uphold the conviction. First, on October 24, 2006, a police officer, posing as a young girl, engaged Harrison in an internet exchange. At the outset (eight-lines in), Harrison was on notice that he was corresponding with a fourteen-year-old girl. Then, he made the first mention of a sexual encounter, by inquiring "hmm wanna f[***]."¹ Although he immediately qualified his crass offer with a "lol" (laugh out loud), he then followed this up with a request for the would-be girl's telephone number. Thereafter, he called the number he was provided and carried on a thirty-minute phone conversation, with a police-department employee posing as the...