Halliday v. State
2011 Ark. App. 544
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- On August 13, 2010, a Marion County jury convicted Halliday of first-degree sexual assault and sexual indecency with a child, sentencing him to 12 and 3 years, consecutively.
- Halliday appeals challenging the sufficiency of the evidence for both convictions and contends the jury instruction on sexual indecency with a child was not a valid lesser-included offense of sexual assault in the first degree.
- The State’s proof focused on a victim who testified to sexual activity with Halliday while under 18; the defense argued credibility issues and lack of a formal caretaker role.
- The circuit court submitted a jury instruction on sexual indecency with a child despite Halliday not being charged with that offense, raising preservation and statutory-clarity issues.
- The court affirmed both convictions and held the evidence was sufficient for each offense and that the jury instruction issue was not preserved for review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there substantial evidence Halliday held a position of trust/authority or temporary caretaker? | Halliday, as the victim's older associate, was in a position of trust/authority. | There was no testimony showing a custodial or supervisory role over the victim. | Yes; substantial evidence supported position of trust/authority (and temporary caretaker) beyond mere age. |
| Was there sufficient evidence to support sexual indecency with a child? | Solicitation and opportunities to engage in prohibited acts were shown by conduct and circumstances over time. | Evidence does not prove solicitation beyond the first instance of intercourse. | Yes; substantial evidence supports solicitation of the victim. |
| Was the jury instruction on sexual indecency with a child a preserved error when not charged as a lesser-included offense? | Improper instruction could have prejudiced the conviction. | Objections were not preserved; Wicks exceptions do not apply to this issue here. | Not preserved for review; affirmed on preserved grounds. |
Key Cases Cited
- Brown v. State, 374 Ark. 341 (2008) (victim testimony alone can sustain sexual assault conviction)
- May v. State, 94 Ark. App. 202 (2006) (test for position of trust/authority includes minimal chaperone role)
- Bowker v. State, 368 Ark. 345 (2005) (defines temporary caretaker as custodial responsibility)
- Murphy v. State, 83 Ark. App. 72 (2003) (reiterates young-victim care and supervision by adult)
- Davenport v. State, 373 Ark. 71 (2008) (credibility of witnesses is for the jury)
- Buckley v. State, 349 Ark. 53 (2002) (Wicks framework for preserved/unpreserved errors)
- Wicks v. State, 270 Ark. 781 (1980) (standard for reviewing unpreserved errors under Rule 103(d))
- Tryon v. State, 371 Ark. 25 (2007) (credibility and evaluating witness testimony)
- Racksley v. State, 371 Ark. 438 (2007) (prejudice considerations in review of error)
- Anderson v. State, 353 Ark. 384 (2003) (Wicks exception review framework; preserving errors)