Opinion

Newman v. State

  • 380 S.W.3d 395
  • 2011 Ark. 112
  • 2011 Ark. LEXIS 102
Court
Supreme Court of Arkansas
Filed
Mar 17, 2011
Status
Published
Author
Gunter
On the bench
Danielson, Gunter
Cited by
8 cases

The opinion

JIM GUNTER, Justice, concurring.

While I agree with the majority that the record fails to reflect any evidence to show that Newman worked primarily and directly with children, I write separately to point out to the Arkansas General Assembly

that the plain language of this statute, as interpreted by the majority, permits Level 3 and 4 sex offenders to work in daycare centers and schools where children are present. The plain language of the statute prohibits sex offenders from working primarily and directly with children, but does not address the situation, as we have here, where a Level 4 sex offender works in an environment | swhere children are present, indeed in an environment where children are “captive.” The fact that Newman was a contractor and not a staff member is little solace to parents who fear for their vulnerable offspring.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.