Rowland v. State
2017 Ark. App. 415
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Appellant Jeremy Rowland was convicted of sexual assault in the second degree and sentenced to 204 months’ imprisonment.
- Information charging second-degree sexual assault was filed May 27, 2015; amended information changed subsection on June 15, 2016.
- The State sought a non-AMC jury instruction on sexual assault in the second degree, arguing AMC 2d 1403 lacked definitions for critical terms.
- The circuit court ruled that ‘temporary caretaker’ is an element requiring definition and adopted a non-AMC instruction including that term; sexual gratification was limited to its definition within sexual contact for voir dire.
- Rowland challenged the instruction on appeal; the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the non-AMC instruction defining ‘temporary caretaker’ was correct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the non-AMC instruction defining temporary caretaker was proper. | Rowland | Rowland | Instruction proper; no abuse of discretion. |
| Whether the court erred by omitting a separate definition of sexual gratification. | Rowland | State | No reversible error; definition provided via sexual contact framework. |
Key Cases Cited
- Nelson v. State, 2011 Ark. 429 (Ark. 2011) (defines temporary caretaker by plain meaning; babysitter/chaperone suffices)
- Halliday v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 544 (Ark. App. 2011) (supports caretaking relationship can establish temporary caretaker)
- Vidos v. State, 367 Ark. 296 (Ark. 2006) (abuse of discretion standards for instructions and related proceedings)
- Akers v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 352 (Ark. App. 2015) (instruction-issue standards and AMC usage)
- Ventress v. State, 303 Ark. 194 (Ark. 1990) (factors for evaluating jury instructions)