Holcomb v. State
2014 Ark. 141
Ark.2014Background
- Derek Coy Holcomb (age >21) engaged in online chats with a Yahoo account "pageant_gurl43" purporting to be a 15‑year‑old girl; the account was created and operated by Detective Donald Eversole (an undercover officer).
- Between Oct. 23, 2009 and June 10, 2010, Holcomb and Eversole exchanged 846 instant messages, including sexually explicit communications and a webcam video of Holcomb masturbating.
- Holcomb discussed travel to meet the purported girl (references to Van Buren, Little Rock, staying with a friend, hotel rooms) but repeatedly backed away or gave excuses in the chats.
- Holcomb was charged under Ark. Code Ann. § 5‑27‑306(a)(2) (internet stalking of a child) and convicted after a second trial; sentenced to a five‑year suspended sentence and an $8,000 fine.
- On appeal Holcomb argued (1) insufficient evidence to show he acted "in an effort to arrange a meeting" with a person he believed to be 15, and (2) the statute is unconstitutional under the First Amendment. The court reversed and dismissed on the sufficiency ground and did not reach the constitutional issue.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Holcomb) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to show defendant acted "in an effort to arrange a meeting" with a person he believed to be 15 under Ark. Code § 5‑27‑306(a)(2) | Chat messages and webcam conduct (offers to visit, discuss travel, hotel, "get a room", sexual propositions) show a determined attempt to organize a meeting for sexual activity | Chats were hypotheticals/teasing; Holcomb repeatedly declined or gave excuses and never made concrete arrangements or set date/place — no determined attempt | Reversed: insufficient evidence; messages did not amount to a "determined attempt" to organize/plan a meeting as required by the statute |
Key Cases Cited
- Whitt v. State, 365 Ark. 580 (holding directed‑verdict/sufficiency review principles)
- Gillard v. State, 366 Ark. 217 (same; assessing evidence in light most favorable to the State)
- Ricks v. State, 316 Ark. 601 (definition of substantial evidence standard)
- Thomas v. State, 312 Ark. 158 (consider only evidence supporting the verdict)
- Williams v. State, 347 Ark. 728 (criminal statutes strictly construed in favor of defendant)
- Madness v. State, 2012 Ark. 16 (statutory interpretation principles)
- Smoak v. State, 2011 Ark. 529 (prior appellate decisions interpreting § 5‑27‑306 cited by parties)