Squyres v. State
2015 Ark. App. 665
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Chad Squyres (over 21) communicated via Craigslist and Yahoo Instant Messenger with an undercover officer posing as a teenage girl "Kailie" who identified herself as 14–15.
- Conversations included sexual content, requests for photos, Squyres sent an explicit photo of his penis, and he arranged to meet at an abandoned hospital in Murfreesboro.
- Squyres repeatedly asked whether "Kailie" was a cop and sought verification of her age; the IM log showed she told him she was 15.
- He traveled to Murfreesboro, was arrested near the meeting site, and police seized his phone and a condom from his truck.
- Charged with internet stalking of a child (Ark. Code Ann. § 5-27-306(a)(2)), he was convicted by a jury and sentenced to 120 months; he appealed raising entrapment, sufficiency, sentencing-instruction, and jury-argument issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument (State) | Defendant's Argument (Squyres) | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence / directed verdict | IM log and circumstantial evidence show Squyres believed "Kailie" was 15; substantial evidence supports conviction | Evidence ambiguous; internet representations may be false, so conviction rests on speculation | Affirmed — substantial evidence supports conviction; jurors may infer belief from communications |
| Entrapment (pretrial motion to dismiss) | Undercover conduct merely provided opportunity; entrapment is fact question for jury | Undercover sting induced conduct; dismissal appropriate as a matter of law | Affirmed — entrappment not established as matter of law; factual issue for jury; pretrial dismissal improper |
| Refusal to instruct jury on alternative sentence (probation) | Not necessary per statute; court discretion to refuse | Court abused discretion by denying instruction without reasons | Affirmed — refusal was within discretion; no abuse shown |
| Denial of counsel argument that conviction would require sex-offender registration | Such consequences are irrelevant and not authorized jury instruction | Jury should be informed that registration is mandatory post-conviction | Affirmed — no jury instruction or authority required informing jury of registration; trial court did not err |
Key Cases Cited
- Wedgeworth v. State, 301 Ark. 91 (affirmative-defense entrapment burden and fact-question normally for jury)
- Leeper v. State, 264 Ark. 298 (entrapment exists as matter of law only when no factual dispute)
- Watson v. State, 313 Ark. 304 (no pretrial dismissal when State has not yet proved its case)
- Kelley v. State, 103 Ark. App. 110 (overview of communications can show defendant knew counterpart was underage)
- Walls v. State, 280 Ark. 291 (entrapment ordinarily a jury question)
- Steele v. State, 434 S.W.3d 424 (trial court may refuse alternative-sentence instruction where discretion properly exercised)
- Hoodenpyle v. State, 428 S.W.3d 547 (abuse-of-discretion standard for alternative-sentence instruction)
- Rodgers v. State, 71 S.W.3d 579 (court must exercise discretion, not adopt blanket policies on instructions)
- Dale v. State, 935 S.W.2d 274 (permissive nature of alternative-sentence statute)
- Bailey v. State, 972 S.W.2d 239 (appellate court will not consider issues unsupported by citation or argument)