Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 168 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-22-809
MICHAEL SHANE STOELTING Opinion Delivered March 12, 2025 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BENTON V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 04CR-19-2969]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BRAD KARREN, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED
MIKE MURPHY, Judge
A Benton County jury convicted appellant Michael Stoelting of rape of a minor child
(M.C.) and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Stoelting argues that
sufficient evidence does not support the conviction. We affirm.
In December 2019, police received a report that Stoelting engaged in deviate sexual
activity with M.C. both before and after he was appointed M.C.’s legal guardian. M.C.
confided in his school counselor, and she reported it to the Arkansas State Child Abuse
Hotline. When officers met with M.C., he disclosed that Stoelting had performed oral sex
on him while the two were living together. The State charged Stoelting by criminal
information with having committed the crime of rape in violation of Arkansas Code
Annotated section 5-14-103(a)(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2024). A jury trial was conducted on May 17–19, 2022. J.C. Wiseman, a former Bentonville
Police Officer testified that he took a child-abuse-hotline assignment involving this case.
Wiseman stated that M.C. met Stoelting on Grindr, a dating application serving LGBTQ
individuals. Wiseman testified that Stoelting and M.C. had two sexual encounters—one
shortly after they met and one shortly after M.C. told Stoelting that “they shouldn’t be having
sex anymore.” Wiseman stated that the last sexual encounter happened approximately five
months before the hotline call, around July 2019.
Detective Sergeant Josh Woodhams with the Bentonville Police Department testified
regarding digital forensics performed on M.C.’s and Stoelting’s cellular and computer
devices. He was able to retrieve over five thousand messages between M.C. and Stoelting.
The State introduced without objection a printout of the messages with a certified
transcription—they were originally in Spanish and had to be translated. Woodhams testified
that the admitted messages were exchanged between July 20 and 22, 2019. On July 22, M.C.
texted Stoelting, “[S]leeping with a man is a sin and well, I never should have done it.”
Stoelting then replied, “I have been feeling very bad because of what we did last week and
then again on Saturday. I feel that was very bad for me to do with you. I hope that you know
I am truly sorry. I will never do that again with you.” He also texted that same day, “A father
should never do those things with his son.” Woodhams also testified that he found
documents on Stoelting’s computed that revealed Stoelting is M.C.’s guardian. Those
documents were dated September 2019.
2 Lieutenant Keith Lawson with the Cave Springs Police Department testified that he
was involved in the investigation and interviewed Stoelting. Stoelting told Lawson that M.C.
reached out to him through Grindr. M.C. was living in Siloam Springs at the time, so
Stoelting visited him there. Lawson testified that Stoelting said he and M.C. had oral sex the
first time they met. M.C. had initially told Stoelting that he was nineteen years old, but
shortly after the initial sexual contact, M.C. admitted to Stoelting that he was sixteen.
According to Lawson, Stoelting acknowledged that he discussed marriage or adoption with
M.C. so that M.C. would not be deported.1
M.C. testified that he was nineteen at the time of the trial. He stated that he met
Stoelting on Grindr and was living with co-workers in Siloam Springs at the time. M.C.
testified that he was sixteen when he met Stoelting but that he claimed to be older. Stoelting
told M.C. he was twenty-eight but then later he told him he was forty. M.C. testified that
after the two met on Grindr, Stoelting came to Siloam Springs. About a month after they
met, M.C. said the two moved in together in Cave Springs. About two and a half months
later, the two moved to Bentonville.
M.C. testified that at some point shortly after they began living together, Stoelting
became his legal guardian in a court proceeding. M.C. did not remember exactly when the
guardianship took place, but he recalled going to school that day and that school had been
in session for only a week or two. M.C. acknowledged signing a petition for guardianship on
1 M.C. fled Guatemala, where the rest of his family lived, and came to the United States in 2018.
3 July 30, 2019; the petition was file marked August 15, 2019. The petition was admitted into
evidence. M.C. testified that he and Stoelting had three sexual interactions—once before the
guardianship and twice after. The first time was in Siloam Springs shortly after they met on
Grindr, and the second and third times were within a week of each other after they had
moved in together. M.C. testified that both times Stoelting touched his “front part”—
meaning penis—with his hands and mouth in the home in Cave Springs.
Once the State rested, Stoelting moved for directed verdict, arguing that there was
insufficient proof that he was M.C.’s guardian at the time of the alleged rape. The court
denied the motion, acknowledging that M.C.’s timeline was inconsistent and contradictory
at times but ultimately concluding that the issue went to M.C.’s credibility, an issue for the
jury to decide. Stoelting did not testify, and the defense rested. Stoelting renewed his motion
for directed verdict, and the court again denied it. The jury determined Stoelting was guilty
and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. This appeal follows.
Motions for directed verdict are treated as challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence. Maina v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 38, at 4, 704 S.W.3d 364, 367. In a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State
and consider only the evidence that supports the conviction. Id. The appellate courts
determine whether the evidence was substantial. Id. Evidence is sufficient if it is of such
character and force that it, with reasonable certainty, compels a conclusion one way or the
other without resort to speculation or conjecture. Id. The credibility of witnesses is an issue
for the jury. Kinsey v. State, 2016 Ark. 393, 503 S.W.3d 772. The trier of fact is free to believe
4 all or part of any witness’s testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and
inconsistent evidence. Id.
Stoelting was charged with violating Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-14-
103(a)(4)(A)(i), which prohibits sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with a person
who is a minor when the actor is the victim’s guardian. Stoelting contends the State failed
to provide sufficient evidence that he was the victim’s guardian at the time of the alleged act.
The term “guardian” includes any person who, by virtue of a living arrangement, is placed
in an apparent position of power or authority over a minor. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(4).
“Deviate sexual activity” means, in part, any act of sexual gratification involving the
penetration, however slight, of the anus or mouth of a person by the penis of another person.
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(1)(A) (Repl. 2024). This court has consistently held that the
testimony of a rape victim, standing alone, is sufficient to support a conviction if the
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 168 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION IV No. CR-22-809
MICHAEL SHANE STOELTING Opinion Delivered March 12, 2025 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE BENTON V. COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 04CR-19-2969]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE BRAD KARREN, JUDGE APPELLEE AFFIRMED
MIKE MURPHY, Judge
A Benton County jury convicted appellant Michael Stoelting of rape of a minor child
(M.C.) and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Stoelting argues that
sufficient evidence does not support the conviction. We affirm.
In December 2019, police received a report that Stoelting engaged in deviate sexual
activity with M.C. both before and after he was appointed M.C.’s legal guardian. M.C.
confided in his school counselor, and she reported it to the Arkansas State Child Abuse
Hotline. When officers met with M.C., he disclosed that Stoelting had performed oral sex
on him while the two were living together. The State charged Stoelting by criminal
information with having committed the crime of rape in violation of Arkansas Code
Annotated section 5-14-103(a)(4)(A)(i) (Repl. 2024). A jury trial was conducted on May 17–19, 2022. J.C. Wiseman, a former Bentonville
Police Officer testified that he took a child-abuse-hotline assignment involving this case.
Wiseman stated that M.C. met Stoelting on Grindr, a dating application serving LGBTQ
individuals. Wiseman testified that Stoelting and M.C. had two sexual encounters—one
shortly after they met and one shortly after M.C. told Stoelting that “they shouldn’t be having
sex anymore.” Wiseman stated that the last sexual encounter happened approximately five
months before the hotline call, around July 2019.
Detective Sergeant Josh Woodhams with the Bentonville Police Department testified
regarding digital forensics performed on M.C.’s and Stoelting’s cellular and computer
devices. He was able to retrieve over five thousand messages between M.C. and Stoelting.
The State introduced without objection a printout of the messages with a certified
transcription—they were originally in Spanish and had to be translated. Woodhams testified
that the admitted messages were exchanged between July 20 and 22, 2019. On July 22, M.C.
texted Stoelting, “[S]leeping with a man is a sin and well, I never should have done it.”
Stoelting then replied, “I have been feeling very bad because of what we did last week and
then again on Saturday. I feel that was very bad for me to do with you. I hope that you know
I am truly sorry. I will never do that again with you.” He also texted that same day, “A father
should never do those things with his son.” Woodhams also testified that he found
documents on Stoelting’s computed that revealed Stoelting is M.C.’s guardian. Those
documents were dated September 2019.
2 Lieutenant Keith Lawson with the Cave Springs Police Department testified that he
was involved in the investigation and interviewed Stoelting. Stoelting told Lawson that M.C.
reached out to him through Grindr. M.C. was living in Siloam Springs at the time, so
Stoelting visited him there. Lawson testified that Stoelting said he and M.C. had oral sex the
first time they met. M.C. had initially told Stoelting that he was nineteen years old, but
shortly after the initial sexual contact, M.C. admitted to Stoelting that he was sixteen.
According to Lawson, Stoelting acknowledged that he discussed marriage or adoption with
M.C. so that M.C. would not be deported.1
M.C. testified that he was nineteen at the time of the trial. He stated that he met
Stoelting on Grindr and was living with co-workers in Siloam Springs at the time. M.C.
testified that he was sixteen when he met Stoelting but that he claimed to be older. Stoelting
told M.C. he was twenty-eight but then later he told him he was forty. M.C. testified that
after the two met on Grindr, Stoelting came to Siloam Springs. About a month after they
met, M.C. said the two moved in together in Cave Springs. About two and a half months
later, the two moved to Bentonville.
M.C. testified that at some point shortly after they began living together, Stoelting
became his legal guardian in a court proceeding. M.C. did not remember exactly when the
guardianship took place, but he recalled going to school that day and that school had been
in session for only a week or two. M.C. acknowledged signing a petition for guardianship on
1 M.C. fled Guatemala, where the rest of his family lived, and came to the United States in 2018.
3 July 30, 2019; the petition was file marked August 15, 2019. The petition was admitted into
evidence. M.C. testified that he and Stoelting had three sexual interactions—once before the
guardianship and twice after. The first time was in Siloam Springs shortly after they met on
Grindr, and the second and third times were within a week of each other after they had
moved in together. M.C. testified that both times Stoelting touched his “front part”—
meaning penis—with his hands and mouth in the home in Cave Springs.
Once the State rested, Stoelting moved for directed verdict, arguing that there was
insufficient proof that he was M.C.’s guardian at the time of the alleged rape. The court
denied the motion, acknowledging that M.C.’s timeline was inconsistent and contradictory
at times but ultimately concluding that the issue went to M.C.’s credibility, an issue for the
jury to decide. Stoelting did not testify, and the defense rested. Stoelting renewed his motion
for directed verdict, and the court again denied it. The jury determined Stoelting was guilty
and sentenced him to ten years’ imprisonment. This appeal follows.
Motions for directed verdict are treated as challenges to the sufficiency of the
evidence. Maina v. State, 2025 Ark. App. 38, at 4, 704 S.W.3d 364, 367. In a challenge to
the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the State
and consider only the evidence that supports the conviction. Id. The appellate courts
determine whether the evidence was substantial. Id. Evidence is sufficient if it is of such
character and force that it, with reasonable certainty, compels a conclusion one way or the
other without resort to speculation or conjecture. Id. The credibility of witnesses is an issue
for the jury. Kinsey v. State, 2016 Ark. 393, 503 S.W.3d 772. The trier of fact is free to believe
4 all or part of any witness’s testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and
inconsistent evidence. Id.
Stoelting was charged with violating Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-14-
103(a)(4)(A)(i), which prohibits sexual intercourse or deviate sexual activity with a person
who is a minor when the actor is the victim’s guardian. Stoelting contends the State failed
to provide sufficient evidence that he was the victim’s guardian at the time of the alleged act.
The term “guardian” includes any person who, by virtue of a living arrangement, is placed
in an apparent position of power or authority over a minor. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(4).
“Deviate sexual activity” means, in part, any act of sexual gratification involving the
penetration, however slight, of the anus or mouth of a person by the penis of another person.
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-14-101(1)(A) (Repl. 2024). This court has consistently held that the
testimony of a rape victim, standing alone, is sufficient to support a conviction if the
testimony satisfies the statutory elements of rape. Mabry v. State, 2020 Ark. 72, at 6, 594
S.W.3d 39, 44.
It is undisputed that M.C. was a minor and that he and Stoelting engaged in deviate
sexual activity: the only issue is whether the evidence sufficiently established that Stoelting
was M.C.’s guardian. Stoelting argues that M.C. testified inconsistently regarding when the
sexual encounters occurred.
The State presented substantial evidence that Stoelting was in a position of power or
authority when he raped M.C. M.C. testified that Stoelting twice performed oral sex on him
after they had moved in together and after Stoelting had become his guardian. As it was
5 entitled to do, the jury reasonably credited M.C.’s testimony regarding these acts and when
they occurred. Moreover, the petition for guardianship stated that M.C. had been in the care
and custody of Stoelting since July 17, 2019. In the July 22 text messages, Stoelting
acknowledges two sexual interactions: “I feel bad because of what we did last week and again
on Saturday.” July 22, 2019, fell on a Monday, so the previous Saturday would have been
July 20—after M.C. was admittedly in Stoelting’s care and custody. It was not unreasonable
for the jury to conclude that Stoelting was in a position of power or authority over M.C.
Affirmed.
VIRDEN and GLADWIN, JJ., agree.
Robert M. “Robby” Golden, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Michael Zangari, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.