Newman v. State
2011 Ark. 112
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Newman pleaded guilty or nolo contendere to failure to register as a sex offender on March 14, 2007 and received 24 months' probation.
- On October 28, 2008 the State filed a petition to revoke probation alleging violations including failure to pay fees and violating 5-14-129(a) by working at TLC Daycare.
- A September 8, 2009 revocation hearing featured only the probation officer as witness, who testified Newman admitted working at the daycare and that the owner praised him after learning of his status.
- The court relied on a 'sex offender acknowledgment form' and paragraph seven of that form to find that Newman, as a Level 3/4 offender, could not work in a setting with children present, and revoked probation for six years’ imprisonment.
- Newman appealed, contending the statute 5-14-129(a) did not apply to his conduct and that the probation conditions were not properly proved.
- The Arkansas Supreme Court reversed and remanded, holding that the plain language of 5-14-129(a) does not apply to Newman’s conduct as found by the circuit court.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Did Newman violate 5-14-129(a) by working at a daycare? | Newman contends the record shows no work with children. | State maintains working around children violates the statute for Level 3/4 offenders. | No; statute not shown to apply to the conduct. |
| Was 5-14-129(a) a probation condition and supported by the record? | Conditions of probation were not established by the State with sufficient evidence. | Statute intended to keep offenders from roles involving children; evidence supports violation. | The court erred; probation violation not proven by preponderance. |
| Should the circuit court’s interpretation of the statute control? | Statutory meaning should be strictly construed in the defendant’s favor. | The State argues the language and intent support the revocation. | Yes, but the plain language does not support the result; reversed and remanded. |
Key Cases Cited
- Bradley v. State, 847 Ark. 518, 65 S.W.3d 874 (Ark. 2002) (probation-revocation standard; preponderance of evidence required)
- Singleton v. State, 2009 Ark. 594, 357 S.W.3d 891 (Ark. 2009) (statutory-interpretation framework; plain-language approach)
- T.C. v. State, 2010 Ark. 240, 364 S.W.3d 53 (Ark. 2010) (treats petition-for-review as original filing; standard of review)