Fredrick Bruce Barfield v. State of Arkansas
588 S.W.3d 412
Ark. Ct. App.2019Background
- Victim S.H., age 12, slept on the living-room couch while appellant Fredrick Barfield (dating the victim’s mother) spent the night; Barfield touched S.H.’s breasts over and then under her clothing after she told him to stop.
- S.H. told her mother; mother confronted Barfield, who first minimized the contact then made admissions. The assault was reported to the Child Advocacy Center and police.
- Barfield gave recorded interviews admitting he grabbed her and made "circle moves" on her breast and rubbed her nipple for about a minute, but claimed the purpose was to "teach her how to say no." S.H. denied initiating contact.
- A Garland County jury convicted Barfield of second-degree sexual assault (element: sexual contact with a person under 14 by one 18 or older).
- At sentencing the jury returned a recommendation for alternative sentencing (probation) without specifying a term and separately returned a verdict fixing a $3,500 fine; the court, with agreement of parties, imposed ten years’ supervised probation and made the $3,500 fine a condition of probation.
- Barfield appealed, challenging (1) sufficiency of the evidence that the touching was for sexual gratification and (2) the court’s authority/procedure in imposing a ten-year probation term and making the fine a condition.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency: whether evidence proved "sexual contact" done for sexual gratification | State: touching of breasts after refusal, attempts to silence victim, and Barfield’s admissions permit reasonable inference of sexual gratification | Barfield: he touched only for "sexual education," not for gratification; touching alone insufficient to prove intent | Affirmed. Viewing evidence in State’s favor, jury reasonably inferred sexual gratification; substantial evidence supports conviction |
| Sentencing: whether court erred by imposing 10 years’ probation and making fine a condition after jury verdicts | State: under §16-97-101(4) jury may recommend alternative sentence; court may accept recommendation and, when suspending sentence or placing on probation, impose conditions (including fines) | Barfield: trial court lacked authority to alter jury’s verdict; court lost jurisdiction to impose a different sentence; no valid waiver to let court set probation term | Affirmed. Court did not abuse discretion; Sullivan permits fines as conditions of probation/suspended sentences; parties and defendant agreed in open court to let court fix probation term |
Key Cases Cited
- McGalliard v. State, 306 Ark. 181 (1991) (construing "sexual gratification" and interpreting statutory language)
- Warren v. State, 314 Ark. 192 (1993) (where no legitimate reason exists for sexual contact, sexual gratification may be inferred)
- Brown v. State, 374 Ark. 341 (2008) (jury not required to believe defendant’s self-serving testimony)
- Sorum v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 384 (2017) (upholding inference of sexual gratification over claim of "just messing around")
- King v. State, 564 S.W.3d 563 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018) (standard of review for sufficiency challenges)
- Sullivan v. State, 366 Ark. 183 (2006) (trial court may impose conditions reasonably related to rehabilitation, including fines as conditions of probation/suspended sentences)
- Donaldson v. State, 370 Ark. 3 (2007) (rejecting trial-court-imposed sentence that increased punishment after a valid jury verdict)
- Cavin v. State, 284 Ark. 363 (1984) (fine may be imposed as a condition of a suspended sentence)
- Harmon v. State, 317 Ark. 47 (1994) (entry of judgment of conviction where fine imposed and sentence of imprisonment suspended)
- Jones v. State, 297 Ark. 485 (1989) (noting correctness of entering judgment where fine imposed and imposition of imprisonment suspended)