Smoak v. State
2011 Ark. 529
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Smoak was convicted by a Crawford County jury of internet stalking of a child under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-306; sentence was 96 months with 24 suspended.
- On appeal, Smoak challenges the denial of a directed verdict for insufficiency of evidence and the lawfulness of denying an entrapment defense and omitting an entrapment jury instruction.
- Detective Eversole created a Yahoo profile posing as a 15-year-old girl; Smoak, aged 28, engaged in online conversations with her.
- Chat logs show Smoak expressed sexual interest and attempted to arrange a meeting, including offers of food, condoms, and sexual activity.
- Smoak’s father testified about Smoak’s low intelligence; a trial chat log was admitted as evidence; the State argued substantial evidence supported seduction/solicitation.
- The court adopts the Mathews rule (entrapment instruction available despite denial of offense) and remands for further proceedings; otherwise affirmed in part and reversed/remanded in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Is there sufficient evidence to support the conviction? | Smoak argues insufficient evidence. | State contends evidence supports the verdict. | Yes; substantial evidence supports conviction. |
| Whether a defendant denying the offense can obtain an entrapment instruction when evidence supports entrapment | Smoak seeks entrapment instruction despite denying offense. | State argues entrapment instruction not available when offense denied. | Entitlement to entrapment instruction when evidence could support entrapment; remand for proceedings consistent with Mathews rule. |
Key Cases Cited
- Mathews v. United States, 485 U.S. 58 (U.S. 1988) (entrapment instruction available with sufficient evidence, even if elements denied)
- Young v. State, 308 Ark. 647 (Ark. 1992) (cannot deny crime and simultaneously rely on entrapment in prior doctrine)
- Heritage v. State, 326 Ark. 839 (Ark. 1996) (precedent on entrapment and conflicting defenses)
- Morris v. State, 300 Ark. 340 (Ark. 2006) (discussed Mathews interplay with Arkansas cases)
- Pyle v. State, 340 Ark. 53 (Ark. 2000) (entrapment/defense pleading principles in Arkansas)
- Weaver v. State, 339 Ark. 97 (Ark. 1999) (entrapment defense and evidentiary issues)
- Montgomery v. State, 367 Ark. 485 (Ark. 2006) (considers denial of offense and entrapment defenses)