## Facts

- Law enforcement executed a search warrant at a building behind a residence in Fort Smith, Arkansas, and found an active dogfight between two pit bull terriers with about fifteen people present.
- The building had been converted into an arena for dogfighting, including a constructed pit consistent with written dogfighting rules found on-site.
- Officers seized a videotape of the fight recorded during the event and a multi-page set of dogfighting rules kept in a filing cabinet in the building.
- Individuals present at the fight were arrested and charged under Act 862 of 1981, which criminalized, among other conduct, promoting dogfighting and being present at a dogfight presented as a public spectacle.
- One defendant associated with the property was charged with promoting or engaging in dogfighting or possessing a dog for that purpose; the remaining defendants (including Ash) were charged based on witnessing or being present at the dogfight.
- The defendants presented no evidence at trial; the jury convicted and imposed fines.
- The appeal reached the Arkansas Supreme Court to address statutory construction of “promotes” and the sufficiency of the evidence.

## Issues

1. Whether “promotes” in Arkansas’s dogfighting statute encompasses maintaining and facilitating a dogfighting venue and operation, even without direct participation in the fight itself.
2. Whether the evidence was sufficient to support convictions for (a) promoting dogfighting and related prohibited conduct and (b) witnessing or being present at a dogfight presented as a public spectacle.

## Decision

- The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed the convictions.
- The court held that the evidence permitted a finding that maintaining and facilitating an arena used for clandestine dogfighting fell within the statute’s prohibition on “promoting” dogfighting.
- The court held that the defendants found at the scene during an active fight could be convicted for being present at, or witnessing, a dogfight presented as a public spectacle.

## Legal Principles

- Statutes aimed at suppressing dogfighting may be construed to reach not only the act of fighting but also conduct that furthers or facilitates the activity, including providing and maintaining a venue and related instrumentalities.
- Knowledge and participation in promotion may be proved by circumstantial evidence, including the existence of a purpose-built arena, written rules kept on-site, and organized conditions consistent with planned dogfighting.
- A defendant’s presence at an organized dogfight in progress, under circumstances indicating a staged event with spectators, can constitute sufficient evidence of unlawful presence at a dogfight presented as a public spectacle.

## Conclusion

The court upheld convictions arising from a raid on an active dogfight, interpreting “promotes” to include maintaining and facilitating a dogfighting arena and finding the on-scene evidence sufficient to convict both alleged promoters and spectators under Arkansas’s dogfighting statute.


Ash v. State, 290 Ark. 278, 718 S.W.2d 930 (Ark. 1986)