{"id":2816,"date":"2022-02-04T15:43:27","date_gmt":"2022-02-04T21:43:27","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/?p=2816"},"modified":"2022-02-04T17:07:46","modified_gmt":"2022-02-04T23:07:46","slug":"state-of-arkansas-v-scott-ark-2022","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2022\/02\/04\/state-of-arkansas-v-scott-ark-2022\/","title":{"rendered":"State of Arkansas v. Scott (Ark. 2022)"},"content":{"rendered":"<div class=\"introduction-wrapper\">\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\">State of Arkansas v. Scott, No. CR-21-347 (Ark. 2022)<\/h2>\n<p><strong><strong>Nature of Case: <\/strong><\/strong> Defendant-Appellee was charged with one count of theft of property and two counts each of kidnapping and first-degree false imprisonment after he jumped into a running car in a hospital parking lot, which was occupied by two minors and drove the car to a nearby mall where he left the vehicle and the two minors unharmed.\u00a0 There were no allegations of sexual assault in the charges.\u00a0 In response to these charges, Defendant-Appellee was examined by a doctor who diagnosed him with several disorders including bipolar disorder.\u00a0 Ultimately the State and the Defense agreed that Defendant-Appellee should be acquitted due to a lack of criminal responsibility.\u00a0 The Court agreed and Defendant was acquitted of his charges.\u00a0 On appeal, the State&#8217;s sole argument is that the circuit court erred by failing to require Defendant-Appellee to register as a sex-offender in spite of his acquittal, pursuant to the state&#8217;s Sex Offender Registration Act of 1997 (SORA).<\/p>\n<p><strong>Holding: <\/strong>The Supreme Court of Arkansas reversed the decision of the lower court concluding that SORA&#8217;s plain language requires Defendant-Appellee to register in spite of his acquittal, because first-degree false imprisonment and kidnapping are defined as &#8220;sex offenses&#8221; under SORA, and SORA&#8217;s express language requires a person to register if he or she has been acquitted of a &#8220;sex offense&#8221; on the grounds of mental disease or defect.<\/p>\n<\/div>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>Case Documents<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/61\/2022\/02\/Arkansas-Supreme-Court-Opinion.pdf\">Arkansas Supreme Court Opinion<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n<h2 style=\"text-align: center\"><em>News and Related Materials<\/em><\/h2>\n<ul class=\"default\">\n<li>Arkansas Times &#8211; <a href=\"https:\/\/arktimes.com\/arkansas-blog\/2022\/01\/20\/supreme-court-says-sex-offender-registration-required-despite-kidnapping-acquittal\" target=\"_blank\" rel=\"noopener\">Supreme Court says sex offender registration required despite kidnapping acquittal<\/a><\/li>\n<\/ul>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"<p>Supreme Court of Arkansas opinion concluding that SORA&#8217;s plain language requires Defendant-Appellee to register in spite of his acquittal for all relevant charges, because first-degree false imprisonment and kidnapping are defined as &#8220;sex offenses&#8221; under SORA, and SORA&#8217;s express language requires a person to register if he or she has been acquitted of a &#8220;sex offense&#8221; on the grounds of mental disease or defect.<\/p>\n<p><a href=\"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/2022\/02\/04\/state-of-arkansas-v-scott-ark-2022\/\" class=\"more-link\">State of Arkansas v. Scott (Ark. 2022)<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1303,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_genesis_hide_title":false,"_genesis_hide_breadcrumbs":false,"_genesis_hide_singular_image":false,"_genesis_hide_footer_widgets":false,"_genesis_custom_body_class":"","_genesis_custom_post_class":"","_genesis_layout":"","footnotes":""},"categories":[9],"tags":[67,265,264,251],"class_list":{"0":"post-2816","1":"post","2":"type-post","3":"status-publish","4":"format-standard","6":"category-sorn-cases","7":"tag-8th-cir","8":"tag-acquittal","9":"tag-arkansas","10":"tag-sora","11":"entry"},"acf":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2816","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1303"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=2816"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/2816\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=2816"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=2816"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/mitchellhamline.edu\/sex-offense-litigation-policy\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=2816"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}