{
  "id": 1900916,
  "name": "John McGALLIARD v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "McGalliard v. State",
  "decision_date": "1991-07-01",
  "docket_number": "CR 91-147",
  "first_page": "181",
  "last_page": "184",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "306 Ark. 181"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "813 S.W.2d 768"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark.",
    "id": 8808,
    "name": "Arkansas Supreme Court"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "304 Ark. 692",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1880864
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/304/0692-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "290 Ark. 375",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1873720
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "385"
        },
        {
          "page": "287"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/290/0375-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 Ark. 320",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "766 S.W.2d 931",
      "category": "reporters:state_regional",
      "reporter": "S.W.2d",
      "case_ids": [
        1889856,
        1889948
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "934"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/298/0301-01",
        "/ark/298/0317-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "298 Ark. 317",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1889948
      ],
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/298/0317-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "300 Ark. 4",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1886839
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1989,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/300/0004-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-14-101",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(8)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-14",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 384,
    "char_count": 5110,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.867,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.8170512596077316e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8380581261687458
    },
    "sha256": "61b5e7786845ae5ab3d950b7a391b837365da8ae0d40b36f65b27d41069a278f",
    "simhash": "1:5ba84f18aa88e9c2",
    "word_count": 845
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T15:19:57.276738+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [],
    "parties": [
      "John McGALLIARD v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice.\nThe appellant, John McGalliard, was convicted of sexual abuse in the first degree and sentenced to seven years imprisonment and a $2,000 fine.\nOn appeal, he argues that the Arkansas Criminal Code\u2019s definition of \u201csexual contact\u201d is unconstitutionally vague and that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. We disagree with both arguments and affirm.\nThe evidence of abuse in this case came primarily from the testimony of the victim, who stated that McGalliard touched her \u201cbetween my legs . . . (indicating) right there in the middle. . . my private parts.\u201d She stated that the touching occurred for \u201cabout an hour\u201d and that \u201cif I told, he would beat me black and blue.\u201d\nBecause the victim was a nine year old minor, McGalliard was charged with violation of Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-14- 108(a) (3) (1987), which provides:\n(a) A person commits sexual abuse in the first degree if:\n* m * *\n(3) Being eighteen (18) years old or older, he engages in sexual contact with a person not his spouse who is less than fourteen (14) years old.\n\u201cSexual contact\u201d is defined as \u201cany act of \u00abexual gratification involving the touching, directly or through clothing, of the sex organs, or buttocks, or anus of a person or the breast of a female.\u201d Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-14-101(8) (1987). McGalliard contends that because \u201csexual gratification\u201d is not defined, the statute does not give fair warning of what behavior is prohibited and, therefore, violates the due process clause of both the Arkansas and the United States Constitution.\nA law is void for vagueness if it lacks ascertainable standards of guilt such that persons of common intelligence must necessarily guess at its meaning and differ as to its application. Edwards v. State, 300 Ark. 4, 775 S.W.2d 900 (1989). We fail to see how section 5-14-101(8) compels such persons to guess at its meaning and application.\n\u201cSexual\u201d is defined in Webster\u2019s Third International Dictionary, unabridged (1961), as \u201cof or relating to the male or female sexes or their distinctive organs or functions\u201d or \u201cof or relating to the sphere of behavior associated with libidinal gratification.\u201d \u201cGratification\u201d is defined as \u201csomething that pleases.\u201d Id. When construed in accordance with their reasonable and commonly accepted meaning, and in context with the specific acts described in section 5-14-101(8), the words leave no doubt as to what behavior is prohibited under the statute.\nFurthermore, we are guided by our rationale in Williams v. State, 298 Ark. 317, 766 S.W.2d 931 (1989). There, Williams was convicted of rape in that he engaged in deviate sexual activity with the victim. The code\u2019s definition of \u201cdeviate sexual activity\u201d also includes acts involving \u201csexual gratification\u201d. Williams argued that although there was evidence he inserted his fingers into the victim\u2019s vagina, there was no evidence he did so for \u201csexual gratification\u201d as required by the statutory definition of \u201cdeviate sexual activity.\u201d We reasoned thusly:\nAlthough there is no direct evidence that the petitioner put his fingers in the victim\u2019s vagina for sexual gratification, it may be assumed that the desire for sexual gratification was the plausible reason rather than out of revenge or out of anger as the petitioner suggests. The plain fact is that when persons, other than physicians or other persons for legitimate medical reasons, insert something in another person\u2019s vagina or anus, it is not necessary that the state provide direct proof that the act was done for sexual gratification.\n298 Ark. 320, 766 S.W.2d at 934. Likewise, we may assume that McGalliard touched the victim for sexual gratification and it is not necessary that the State prove that he was so motivated.\nMcGalliard\u2019s second contention, that the evidence was insufficient to support the verdict, is also without merit. The trial court noted that McGalliard raised this objection through timely motions for directed verdict. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the party against whom the motion is made and a directed verdict is only proper when there is no substantial evidence from which a jury could possibly find for the non-moving party. Jackson v. State, 290 Ark. 375, 720 S.W.2d 282 (1986); see also Prince v. State, 304 Ark. 692, 805 S.W.2d 46 (1991).\nThe victim clearly described and indicated where she was touched. The victim\u2019s testimony need not be corroborated to be sufficient. Jackson v. State, supra. Also, \u201ceven though the child may not use the correct terms for the body part but instead uses her own terms, or demonstrates a knowledge of what and where those body parts referred to are, that will be sufficient to allow the jury to believe that the act occurred.\u201d 290 Ark. at 385, 720 S.W.2d at 287.\nWe affirm the judgment of conviction.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Jack Holt, Jr., Chief Justice."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Thomas B. Devine III, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Ron Fields, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Gil Dudley, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "John McGALLIARD v. STATE of Arkansas\nCR 91-147\n813 S.W.2d 768\nSupreme Court of Arkansas\nOpinion delivered July 1, 1991\nWilliam R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Thomas B. Devine III, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.\nRon Fields, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Gil Dudley, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0181-01",
  "first_page_order": 209,
  "last_page_order": 212
}