Stephen Lister v. State of Arkansas

── Stephen Lister v. State of Arkansas ── Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas Date: April 29, 2026 Category: General Cite as 2026 Ark. App. 254 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION I No. CR-25-465 Opinion Delivered April 29, 2026 STEPHEN LISTER APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. FIRST DIVISION [NO. 60CR-23-3894] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE LEON JOHNSON, JUDGE AFFIRMED N. MARK KLAPPENBACH, Chief Judge Following a jury trial in the Pulaski County Circuit Court, Stephen Lister was found guilty of two counts of first-degree sexual assault and one count of sexual indecency with a child. He was sentenced to a total of thirty-six years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Lister challenges the sufficiency of the evidence supporting the sexual-assault convictions and argues that the circuit court erred in allowing an amendment of the charges. We affirm. Lister was accused of committing two counts of sexual assault against a minor child (MC) whom he met while employed as a teacher and coach at her private school. 1 MC testified that she first met Lister in the fall of 2018 when she was fourteen years old. Over the next three years until Lister’s resignation, Lister served at times as MC’s basketball coach, 1 The charge of sexual indecency with a child involved a different victim. her health teacher, and her advisor. MC testified that they initially developed a “very friendly” relationship that progressed to a “more romantic relationship.” They spent time alone together at school and began communicating extensively outside of school through messaging and video calls, where they had “intimate discussions.” MC testified that Lister touched her in a sexual manner and ultimately digitally penetrated her vagina on two occasions in the fall of 2021. She testified that the first instance occurred before Lister’s resignation from the school on October 2, 2021. She said the second instance happened shortly thereafter, but she was unsure if it was before or after his resignation. MC said that she still viewed Lister as an authority figure after his resignation. Before resting its case, the State moved to amend the two counts of sexual assault from the definition in Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-14-124(a)(2) (Supp. 2021) to the definition contained in section 5-14-124(a)(1)(D). Lister’s attorney’s only objection was that he did not think the State had satisfied that definition, to which the court responded that he could make that argument in his motion for directed verdict. The motion to amend was granted. After the State rested, Lister moved for a directed verdict “on count two because the time element is speculative. He left the employ of the school district on October 1, 2021, and there’s no specific times that––I don’t know when it was. It could have been after.” Lister’s attorney stated that “[o]n the other counts, there’s enough for the jury to decide.” The motion for directed verdict was denied, and Lister was ultimately convicted of all charges. 2  On appeal, Lister first argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction for sexual assault under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-14-124(a)(2).2 As stated above, however, the charges were amended at trial, and Lister was not convicted under subdivision (a)(2). Lister next argues that there was insufficient evidence to convict him under section 5-14-124(a)(1)(D). Under subdivision (a)(1)(D), a person commits first-degree sexual assault if the person engages in sex