Holland v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 49

On Sept. 10, 2014, J.W. was bathing at home when neighbor Wesley Holland entered her bathroom, opened the shower curtain, and touched her breast and vaginal area; J.W. said she told him to stop and he left.
J.W.’s young son and J.W.’s mother provided testimony corroborating that Holland came to the door and entered the house.
Holland gave recorded statements to police (Sept. 10–11) admitting touching J.W.’s breast and vaginal area, later claiming coerced confessions and denying the conduct at trial.
The State charged Holland with rape (later tried as the lesser-included second-degree sexual assault) and residential burglary; the jury convicted on residential burglary and second-degree sexual assault and imposed concurrent prison terms.
Holland moved for directed verdicts (challenging sufficiency) after the State’s case and after his testimony; the trial court denied both motions.
On appeal, Holland argued insufficient evidence to prove unlawful entry/remain and intent to commit a felony (burglary) and insufficient proof that the touching was for sexual gratification (second-degree sexual assault). The Court of Appeals affirmed.

Issue	State's Argument	Holland's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence for residential burglary (unlawful entry/remain & purpose to commit an imprisonable offense)	Evidence showed Holland entered while J.W. was bathing, opened the curtain and touched her sexually; asking if she was undressed before entry and the conduct support an inference of intent to sexually assault	No evidence J.W. or her son revoked Holland’s license to enter or told him to leave; no proof he entered with intent to commit an imprisonable offense	Affirmed — entry/remaining can be unlawful once injury occurs; circumstantial evidence supports an inference of intent to commit sexual assault, satisfying burglary elements
Sufficiency of evidence for second-degree sexual assault (sexual gratification element)	Touching of breast and vagina with no legitimate reason permits the inference the contact was for sexual gratification	Argued State failed to prove intent to receive sexual gratification	Affirmed — sexual contact of breasts/genital area without legitimate reason supports inference of sexual gratification; conviction of lesser-included second-degree assault sustained

Davis v. State, 493 S.W.3d 339 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (standard for reviewing directed-verdict/sufficiency challenges)
Robinson v. State, 491 S.W.3d 481 (Ark. Ct. App. 2016) (view evidence in light most favorable to the verdict; jury credibility determinations binding)
Holt v. State, 284 S.W.3d 498 (Ark. 2011) (elements of residential burglary and when privilege to enter is revoked)
Rose v. State, 472 S.W.3d 167 (Ark. Ct. App. 2015) (license to enter a home can be revoked upon inflicting injury)
Whitfield v. State, 438 S.W.3d 289 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (purpose/intent may be inferred from circumstantial evidence)