Legislators' bill aims to close loophole in indecency statute

Lawmakers seek to close a loophole exposed by an Arkansas Supreme Court ruling earlier this year that allowed a man to avoid prosecution after being accused of forcing a teenage girl to undress in front of him.

One of the many issues scheduled for the special legislative session scheduled to start Thursday is a bill that would allow parents and guardians to be prosecuted for felony sexual indecency with their child or a minor in their care.

The Supreme Court ruled in March that the statute for sexual indecency with a child didn't plainly specify that a parent or guardian could be "another person" to whom a child was forced to expose himself or herself.

Sen. Jeremy Hutchinson, R-Little Rock, said the fix should be fairly simple and doubted there would be any opposition.

"Those kinds of crimes are rarely, if ever, done with an audience," Hutchinson said. "It's an obvious and necessary fix."

The co-sponsor in the House, Rep. Matt Shepherd, R-El Dorado, said the bill was very "timely" for this special session, especially given the public safety risk.

"This is simply clarifying and implementing what the intent of the statute was all along," Shepherd said. "The timing of it works out where we can address it now instead of waiting for a later date and potentially allowing some kind of hole in the law here in light of the court's decision."

The language of the law split the state's highest court two months ago when a majority ruled to uphold a trial judge in tossing a charge of sexual indecency with a child that was filed against a Jefferson County man.

Billy Gene Coble -- who was arrested in 2012 -- was cleared of the Class D felony in 2015 after Jefferson County Circuit Judge Robert Wyatt ruled that prosecutors could not use the statute to charge Coble because he was the legal guardian of the teenager he had ordered to undress.

According to court records, Coble caught the then-14-year-old girl unclothed in her bedroom with her 17-year-old boyfriend.

Coble forced the boy to leave, and the girl, begging not to be punished, agreed to expose herself and move "in various positions while he watched" if he didn't tell anyone else, according to court records.

State prosecutors appealed the ruling, arguing that Wyatt's reading of the law ran counter to common sense as well as legislative intent.

But on March 17, the Supreme Court issued a 5-2 ruling that found that the statute's use of the phrase "another person" ruled out Coble as a perpetrator.

Statute 5-14-110(a)(4)(C) reads:

"With the purpose to arouse or gratify his or her sexual desire or a sexual desire of another person, a person who is eighteen (18) years of age or older causes or coerces a minor to expose his or her sex organs to another person, and the actor is ... the minor's guardian ... a temporary caretaker, or a person in a position of trust or authority over the minor."

The opinion, written by Justice Jo Hart, found that the "another person" language excluded Coble.

In his dissent, Justice Paul Danielson said that the majority's reading of the law was "nonsensical" and strayed from the "common sense" intent of lawmakers.

"The majority contrary interpretation is nonsensical and leads to an absurd result-- namely, that there can be no criminal liability for the guardian of a minor who, with the purpose to arouse his or her sexual desire, causes or coerce the minor to expose his or her sex organs to the guardian."

On Tuesday, Hutchinson said he wouldn't second-guess the court's reading of the law. He said he and Shepherd are only interested on fixing the gap identified by the Court.

"There's no point in arguing with it; it is what it is," Hutchinson said. "I think their ruling is logical and it's probably a strict reading of the statute. ... I think it's possible to arrive at a more common sense reading of it as well. But nonetheless, it's an easy fix."

A Section on 05/18/2016