Scantling v. State
2017 Ark. App. 564
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Matthew Scantling pled guilty in 2001 to one count of first-degree sexual misconduct with a minor (teacher–student incidents in 1998–2000), received probation, 120 days jail, and was ordered to register as a sex offender.
- Probation was terminated and the record sealed in 2003; Scantling’s petition to terminate registration was denied in 2004 and again after renewed petitions.
- In 2016 Scantling petitioned under Ark. Code Ann. § 12-12-919 to terminate his registration after the statutory 15-year period; he submitted testimony and a polygraph report asserting remorse, rehabilitation, and low risk.
- At the November 2016 hearing Scantling testified to long-term church involvement, counseling, a men’s accountability group, and psychiatric treatment; no treating providers, law enforcement witnesses, or pastor testified in support.
- The circuit court found Scantling not credible and concluded he remained a community risk, partly noting that he had received a particularly lenient original disposition; the court denied termination and Scantling appealed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the circuit court erred in denying Scantling’s §12-12-919 petition to terminate sex‑offender registration | Scantling: court failed to apply statutory factors; evidence (testimony, polygraph, letters) showed rehabilitation and low risk | State: Scantling offered insufficient evidence of non‑dangerousness; credibility issues persist | Court affirmed: denial upheld; credibility finding not clearly erroneous and polygraph/testimony insufficient to show lack of risk |
| Whether the polygraph and self‑serving testimony were sufficient to require termination | Scantling: polygraph and testimony bolster his claim of rehabilitation | State: polygraph and testimony are inadequate and credibility is for the factfinder | Court: polygraph only affects witness credibility (and is generally inadmissible absent stipulation); court may reject self‑serving testimony; credibility findings controlling |
Key Cases Cited
- Rollins v. State, 362 Ark. 279 (Ark. 2005) (polygraph results bear only on witness credibility)
- Welch v. State, 364 Ark. 324 (Ark. 2005) (trial court determines witness credibility)
- Ramaker v. State, 345 Ark. 225 (Ark. 2001) (polygraph generally inadmissible absent stipulation)