K.O. APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE
APPEAL
FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, WESTERN DISTRICT
[NO. 16JJV-18-111] HONORABLE BARBARA HALSEY, JUDGE
Terry
Goodwin Jones, for appellant.
Leslie
Rutledge, Att'y Gen., by: Brad Newman, Ass't
Att'y Gen., for appellee.
BART
F. VIRDEN, JUDGE
The
Craighead County Circuit Court adjudicated appellant K.O. a
juvenile delinquent for committing the offense of harassment,
a Class A misdemeanor. The trial court placed K.O. on
probation for twelve months subject to various terms and
conditions. He was also ordered to pay a fine, as well as
costs and fees; perform eighty hours of public service;
cooperate with and follow the recommendations of a counseling
agency; obey a curfew; submit to random drug tests; and be
committed to the Craighead County Juvenile Detention Center
for ninety days, with credit for one day served and with
eighty-nine days deferred. K.O. argues on appeal that the
trial court erred in its adjudication because the State
failed to prove an element of the offense. Because K.O.'s
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting his
adjudication is not preserved for review, we affirm without
reaching the merits.
I.
Background
On
April 3, 2018, the State filed a petition in the juvenile
division of circuit court alleging the following:
That on or about 2-25-18, in Craighead County, Arkansas,
[K.O.] did violate Arkansas Code Annotated
5-71-208, with the purpose to harass, annoy,
or alarm another person, without good cause, he, in a public
place, repeatedly insults, taunts, or challenges another in a
manner to provoke a violent response, namely by, grabbing the
head of an eleven (11) year old female and forcing her face
in his crotch, while telling her he wanted "some
head," which is slang for oral sex, thereby committing
the offense of HARASSMENT (A-M) against the
peace and dignity of the State of Arkansas.
A bench
trial was held on April 4, 2018. Following the presentation
of testimony regarding the factual basis for the State's
petition, defense counsel moved for a directed verdict,
[1]
arguing the following:
Your Honor, at this time I make a motion for a directed
verdict based on 5[-]71-208. The definition of harassment
says that there has to be proof by a prepon-beyond a
reasonable doubt in this new charge, that without good cause
that this person either subjected a person to offensive
physical contact or attempted to threaten to do so, or in a
public place directed obscene language or in an order to-or
in a manner to provoke a violent or disorderly response. Your
Honor, out of those two possible scenarios, the State has not
proven beyond a reasonable doubt that my client did either
one of those two things.
The
trial court denied K.O.'s motion for dismissal, and K.O.
took the stand and testified on his own behalf. When defense
counsel renewed her motion, she did so "with the same
specificity." The trial court again denied K.O.'s
motion and found the allegations in the State's petition
to be true.
II.
Discussion
There
are several ways to commit harassment. Relevant here, a
person commits the offense of harassment if, with purpose to
harass, annoy, or alarm another person, without good cause,
he or she:
(1) strikes, shoves, kicks, or otherwise touches a person,
subjects that person to offensive physical contact or
...