Sharp County jury convicts former Hardy Police Chief of sexual assault
Tammy Curtis, Publisher
After hearing a day and a half of testimony last week, a jury of seven men and five women found former Hardy Police Chief Scott Rose guilty of two of the four charges originally filed against him in 2025.
Rose was taken into custody at the FBI field office in Jonesboro following an investigation initiated in March 2025 by the Sharp County Sheriff’s Office.
Rose was originally charged with felony second-degree sexual assault, sexual indecency with a child, endangering the welfare of a minor and misdemeanor knowingly furnishing alcohol to a minor. The latter two charges were dismissed.
Bond was set at $100,000 on June 4. After posting bond, Rose was ordered by Circuit Judge Alex Bigger to wear an ankle monitor.
PRETRIAL MOTIONS
Before testimony began, Circuit Judge Rob Ratton called local self-described investigator David Kerley to the stand regarding Kerley’s motion to quash a subpoena issued by the defense.
Kerley argued the subpoena from defense attorney Martin Lilly was untimely, saying he should have received three days’ notice to appear as a material witness but was given only two. Kerley said Sharp County Sheriff Shane Russell served him with the subpoena Aug. 24 while he was outside the courthouse wearing a full-face mask with other protesters supporting the victim.
Lilly said he had been unable to locate a telephone number or address for Kerley.
Ratton denied Kerley’s motion and ordered him to provide the defense with contact information regarding his potential testimony. Ratton also advised Kerley that he was under the rule excluding witnesses from discussing the case.
Lilly also challenged the admissibility of portions of Rose’s June 22, 2025, interview with investigators.
Lilly said Rose initially waived his right to counsel orally and in writing but requested an attorney one hour and 19 minutes into the approximately four-hour interview. Lilly asked that statements made after that point be excluded.
Special prosecutor Jason David Barrett argued that Rose merely said, “I think I need to talk to Jarrett,” referring to his original attorney, and did not ask for questioning to stop. Barrett said Rose explicitly requested an attorney at the one-hour, 48-minute mark.
Ratton said he would address the statements individually during trial as they arose.
THE STATE’S CASE
Because Rose was a local law enforcement officer, Barrett served as special prosecutor in the case.
In his opening statement, Barrett told jurors the allegations stemmed from the night of Feb. 13, 2025, when Rose picked up the then-15-year-old victim from her mother’s home to help search for a missing woman.
Barrett alleged Rose, who had previously dated the girl’s mother and had a father-like relationship with the child, had developed romantic feelings for her.
According to Barrett, Rose purchased alcohol and encouraged the girl to drink before the two drove back roads for several hours. They later went to Rose’s cabin at Riverbend Park, where Barrett said Rose attempted to kiss the girl and placed his hands on her thighs.
Barrett said the girl rejected Rose’s advances and asked to go home. During the drive, she sent numerous text messages to her mother saying she was frightened and Rose was acting differently than usual.
When they arrived at the home the girl shared with her mother and grandmother, Ashley and Sandra Hoots, Barrett said the girl asked Rose to carry her because of muddy conditions. Barrett alleged that while carrying her, Rose touched her buttocks and genital area.
Although the original probable cause affidavit in the case was later sealed, the Chronicle obtained a copy before it was sealed. Some information contained in the affidavit was not presented as evidence during the trial.
VICTIM TESTIFIES
Barrett called the victim, now 17, as the state’s first witness.
She testified that Rose had previously dated her mother and that the two developed a close relationship during that time. She called Rose “Dad” and even had him listed that way in her cellphone.
The victim said she rode with Rose on Feb. 13, believing they were searching for a missing woman. She said they stopped at a Valero, where Rose purchased beer for himself, hard lemonade, and snacks. The two then spent two or three hours driving around, talking, laughing, and looking for the woman.
She testified that Rose told her he had a breathalyzer at his cabin and wanted her to test him with it.
Once inside the cabin, she said she was sitting on a couch when Rose stood over her with his hands on her lower thighs.
“I felt that he was trying to kiss me, but I kept turning away,” she testified. “He just kept asking me why I wouldn’t let him kiss me.”
She said this happened three or four times and that she could feel his beard on her face.
The victim testified that Rose had kissed her on the forehead or cheek many times in the past, but this interaction was different. She asked him to take her home.
She said Rose took back roads because he had been drinking and did not want to risk being stopped by police.
During the drive, the victim said Rose told her he loved her “more than a dad.” She testified that she became increasingly frightened because Rose had never spoken to her that way before.
She began sending what ultimately amounted to six pages of text messages to her mother, asking her to stay awake until she arrived home and saying Rose was behaving strangely.
When they arrived, the victim said Rose carried her from the vehicle because of the wet and muddy conditions. She testified that she straddled him with her legs, something she said was not unusual in their relationship.
“This wasn’t anything unusual, but he picked me up, had hands on my butt and vagina, holding there,” she testified.
She said Rose had never touched her private area while carrying her before.
The victim said Rose continued texting her the following day.
Rose had previously paid a deposit for a cruise involving the victim, her boyfriend, friends and parents, and she said he asked whether they still planned to go. She also said Rose offered to buy her a truck.
By then, the victim said, she had told her mother and grandmother about what had happened.
Asked why she responded positively to Rose’s offer of a truck, she said, “Because I didn’t want to let him know I was still mad or upset about it. I was scared.”
The victim also read messages from Rose to the jury in which he discussed his behavior that night. She said Rose told her he was not supposed to drink while taking a new cleansing medication and apologized.
“I miss you. I love you and I will never do that again,” one message said.
The victim confirmed her mother did not respond to her messages that night. She also testified that she is now estranged from her mother and grandmother and is not allowed to see her brother.
DEFENSE CROSS-EXAMINATION
During cross-examination, Lilly established that the victim had spent considerable time at Rose’s Riverbend Park cabin before the alleged incident.
She also acknowledged that Rose calling her “babe” and telling her “I love you” were not unusual in their relationship.
Lilly questioned the victim about her estrangement from her mother and grandmother. The victim said she dropped out of school and moved in with her 19-year-old boyfriend after making the report and later obtained her GED.
“She just did what Mom did,” the victim said when asked why her grandmother stopped speaking to her.
The victim also confirmed that the cruise had been booked before February and Rose had paid the deposit.
She testified that Rose sent her $600 through Cash App months after the incident to help pay for a hotel for her family and boyfriend in Jonesboro. She also acknowledged Rose had provided financial assistance for clothing, a cellphone, gas and other expenses.
During cross-examination, the victim agreed that she had laughed during portions of the drive home that night and that investigators found no inappropriate content in the text messages they examined between her and Rose.
She also agreed that Rose’s messages the following day included an apology for what he had “said,” rather than what he had “done.”
On redirect, Barrett questioned the victim about why Rose had not engaged in similar alleged behavior since that night. The victim testified that their relationship changed after the incident. Barrett argued Rose had not had another “opportunity.”
STATE
POLICE
INVESTIGATOR TESTIFIES
Barrett next called Matt Foster, an Arkansas State Police human trafficking coordinator who works with law enforcement agencies across the state.
Foster testified that he became involved after receiving a call from a Homeland Security representative reporting allegations that a police chief had assaulted a child.
Foster traveled to the FBI field office in Jonesboro and began reviewing information to determine whether a crime had occurred.
He reviewed the victim’s recorded interview but did not personally interview her. Foster said he did not believe it was necessary to make the child repeatedly recount the allegations.
Foster obtained a search warrant that resulted in the seizure of eight cellphones and two computers. Investigators also searched Rose’s truck and found property belonging to the Hardy Police Department.
During questioning, Foster said Rose claimed the victim made the allegations because he had stopped financially supporting her.
Foster also testified that Rose initially said neither he nor the victim drank alcohol that night. Foster said that statement conflicted with text messages in which Rose discussed being intoxicated and apologized for what he had said.
Foster testified that offering to purchase an expensive item for an alleged victim can, in some cases, be a grooming tactic or an attempt to discourage an allegation.
DEFENSE
QUESTIONS
INVESTIGATION
During cross-examination, Lilly established that Foster did not personally interview the victim, her mother or her grandmother.
Foster also acknowledged that Rose did not immediately stop financially supporting the victim after the alleged incident. According to the testimony, the financial support continued for approximately two months and had ended by May, shortly before the allegations were reported.
Foster testified that Rose voluntarily provided investigators with electronic devices and passwords.
The victim also testified that her mother and grandmother had lived rent-free in Rose’s Highland home for nearly four years and did not move out until February 2026.
On redirect, Barrett returned to the $600 Cash App payment Rose made months after the alleged incident and asked Foster why an offender might continue giving money to an alleged victim.
“To groom,” Foster responded.
Lilly challenged that conclusion during additional questioning.
“People can give money to their kids and step kids without it being grooming, right?” Lilly asked.
“It depends on the intent,” Foster responded.
“You don’t know his intent, do you?” Lilly asked.
Foster said he did not.
The state rested its case at 3:15 p.m. on the first day of trial.
DEFENSE
The second day of testimony began with a discussion between Circuit Judge Rob Ratton and attorneys regarding the scope of character witness testimony.
Special prosecutor Jason David Barrett objected to one of the defense witnesses, saying the witness had not been identified until the day before trial, leaving him insufficient time to review the anticipated testimony.
Defense attorney Martin Lilly said the testimony would address the victim’s reputation for truthfulness. Barrett argued that general character testimony was inappropriate and that testimony should be limited to matters relevant to the alleged offense.
Ratton recessed court to allow both sides to review applicable law regarding character witnesses.
When court resumed, the defense called the first of four character witnesses.
Two were juveniles. A female witness who testified she had once been the victim’s best friend said the victim had a reputation for being untruthful. A male witness who said he had also been friends with the victim and spent considerable time with her at Riverbend Park gave similar testimony regarding her truthfulness.
SCOTT ROSE TESTIFIES
After discussing the career path that eventually led him to become Hardy police chief, Rose testified about his relationship with the victim, whom he described as his daughter.
Rose said he first became close with the victim’s family around 2017 or 2018. He testified that he had a close relationship with the girl’s mother and grandmother and believed the victim needed a father figure, so he assumed that role.
Rose said that even after his romantic relationship with the victim’s mother ended, she asked him not to abandon the relationship he had developed with her daughter. He testified that a later girlfriend also accepted the victim as his daughter.
The victim’s mother, grandmother and the victim eventually lived at Rose’s Highland home. The mother and grandmother remained there even after the victim moved out and, according to Rose, moved out only recently.
Rose became emotional while describing the relationship.
“I was her dad,” he testified.
Rose said the victim’s mother had medical issues that prevented her from working and he did not mind financially helping the family.
Asked about the cruise discussed earlier in the trial, Rose said he had made money from selling a house and wanted to do something special for the victim and her friends. He said an elderly woman who liked him helped pay for much of the trip. The approximately $3,000 deposit was paid before the alleged incident.
Rose testified that he frequently gave the victim money or sent her money through Cash App.
Turning to Feb. 13, 2025, Rose said the victim’s mother originally planned to accompany them while they searched for the missing woman but became ill. Before they left, he said, she asked him to pick up alcoholic drinks for her.
Rose confirmed they stopped at a store, where he purchased beer, hard lemonade and snacks before driving toward Ravenden, where he believed the missing woman might be.
Rose said he allowed the victim to drive because she would soon be eligible for a learner’s permit. At some point, he said, she decided she no longer wanted to drive.
Rose testified that this was when he carried the victim — not later at her home, as she had testified.
He said the ground was muddy and the victim was wearing new shoes. When he walked around the truck to switch places with her, she asked him to pick her up. Rose said she wrapped her legs around his waist and he turned and placed her down to keep her shoes out of the mud.
According to Rose, the victim then asked to see improvements he had made to his camper at Riverbend Park, and the two drove there.
Asked whether the victim consumed alcohol that night, Rose said, “I may have let her try one. I am just not sure.”
At the camper, which was also referred to during testimony as the cabin, Rose said he showed the victim how his breathalyzer worked. He testified that his blood alcohol reading was either .04 or .06.
“I always did that,” Rose said of checking his alcohol level.
Asked whether he attempted to kiss the victim on the mouth while they were there, Rose replied, “That is 100 percent a lie.”
Rose said that by that time he had begun to feel the victim was taking advantage of him financially.
“I was like an ATM for her,” he testified.
He said he had been trying to “wean himself from her” financially. Rose acknowledged routinely kissing the victim on the cheek or forehead, but described it as part of their father-daughter relationship.
“It was nothing unusual,” he said.
Rose also alleged the victim had taken money from his bank account by using his debit card without permission.
Asked why he took back roads while returning home that night, Rose said the routes were approximately the same distance, but he chose River Road to FM 101 rather than the main highway because he had consumed several beers.
Rose disputed the victim’s description of being frightened during the drive home. He testified that she was laughing, singing and “carrying on” throughout the trip.
He also disputed portions of her testimony about what happened when they arrived home. Rose said the victim’s mother was awake and present, contrary to testimony that the victim had to summon her mother from her bedroom after receiving no response to her text messages.
Rose testified that he believed the allegations arose after the victim began dating a new boyfriend
He also said the hard lemonade purchased that night was for the victim’s mother and was placed in her refrigerator when they returned home.
Rose addressed his later offer to buy the victim a vehicle and the $600 Cash App payment made after the alleged incident.
He said the victim’s mother had purchased what he described as a “POS truck” that broke down. He also testified that the victim had charged more than $900 in clothing from Shein to his card, which her grandmother later repaid.
Rose said he did not intend to purchase the victim another vehicle after she left school.
“I wasn’t about to reward her for bad behavior,” he testified.
Rose said the $600 Cash App payment was for a Jonesboro hotel after the victim’s mother had problems with her credit card.
PROSECUTION CROSS-
EXAMINATION
During cross-examination, Barrett questioned Rose about inconsistencies between his testimony and text messages he sent after the alleged incident.
Rose again said carrying the victim was not unusual because he had done so before. He testified that she wrapped her legs around him because of the mud and her new shoes and that he placed her into the truck.
Rose said he later tested his alcohol level at home and knew he was not intoxicated. Barrett questioned him about why, then, he sent an apologetic text saying he had been “really drunk,” was taking medication and was “really, really sorry.”
Barrett also questioned Rose about a text exchange concerning why the victim was upset. After the allegations were described in the messages, Rose replied, “I did?”
Barrett also reminded Rose that, as a law enforcement officer, he was a mandated reporter.
On redirect, Lilly argued that Rose’s “I did?” the response was a question expressing surprise at the allegation that he had touched the victim’s genital area while carrying her — not an admission that he had done so.
Rose again became emotional when discussing the accusation.
“I was heartbroken,” he said.
CHARACTER WITNESSES
Danny Holder, Rose’s former brother-in-law, testified positively about Rose’s character. Holder said the two continue to conduct business together and that he had never experienced a problem with Rose’s truthfulness.
Rose’s father, Ernie Rose, also testified about his son’s character.
COURT ADDRESSES RECORDING OF JURORS, WITNESSES
During Friday’s proceedings, two men were brought before Ratton following reports that jurors and witnesses were being recorded inside the courthouse lobby and outside the courtroom.
David Kerley was questioned under oath about whether he had taken video.
Ratton cited state law prohibiting recording in areas adjacent to a courtroom. Kerley said he was unaware of the prohibition.
“That is not my problem. We are trying to have a trial here,” Ratton responded.
Ratton did not hold Kerley in contempt but also referenced an incident the previous day in which Kerley and others placed signs expressing opposition to child sex offenders on courthouse property. Ratton had ordered that the signs could be held by protesters but not placed in the ground.
“This doesn’t have to be complicated,” Ratton said. “This is a judicial process and we have to get through it.”
Kerley was ordered to delete the videos, which was done in the presence of Sheriff Shane Russell.
Joe Marley was also brought before Ratton after being seen with a cellphone mounted on a selfie stick.
Under oath, Marley was asked whether he had recorded jurors or witnesses in the lobby or outside the courtroom.
“To the best of my knowledge, it didn’t record,” Marley said, explaining that his camera had malfunctioned.
Ratton reviewed the phone and found no video.
The judge also addressed Marley about the signs, noting Russell had instructed him the previous day that the signs could be held but could not be placed in the courthouse lawn.
Marley said he had been confused about whether Russell’s instruction was based on law or policy.
“It wasn’t clear. I needed clarification if it was a law or a policy,” Marley said.
Ratton explained that it was a court order issued by the judge and communicated through the sheriff.
“It is my order that they can’t be put out there. Are we clear?” Ratton asked.
Marley said he understood, and his phone and tripod were returned.
Lilly then placed the incidents involving the two men on the record and moved for a mistrial, arguing their actions could intimidate jurors and witnesses. Lilly said Kerley was known for posting material online and expressed concern that jurors, witnesses or their families could be placed at risk.
Ratton said the court could address the matter with jurors and assure them they were safe.
“I don’t think an instruction will cure that,” Lilly responded.
Ratton denied the motion for a mistrial.
CLOSING
ARGUMENTS
In closing arguments, Barrett reviewed the charges of second-degree sexual assault and knowingly furnishing alcohol to a minor and told jurors he trusted them to do their jobs.
He reminded jurors of the victim’s testimony that she felt Rose’s beard against her face as he allegedly attempted to kiss her. Barrett also referenced testimony and text messages concerning Rose’s feelings toward the victim, the alleged touching and discussions about the planned cruise.
Lilly used a baking analogy in his closing argument, comparing the state’s case to making cookies with baking soda instead of baking powder. A recipe may contain most of the correct ingredients, he argued, but if one essential ingredient is wrong or missing, the result changes.
Lilly argued that kissing someone, or wanting to kiss someone, was not itself the crime jurors had been asked to decide.
He also questioned the absence of the victim’s mother and grandmother from the courtroom and urged jurors to consider testimony that they had lived rent-free in Rose’s home.
“Use your common sense,” Lilly told jurors.
He argued that the evidence did not establish sexual gratification, pointing to testimony that the victim had been laughing and singing during the ride home.
Lilly also emphasized that the allegations were not reported until months after the incident and argued that the timing coincided with Rose ending his financial support of the victim.
In the state’s final argument, Barrett countered Lilly’s assertions about the absence of the victim’s mother, arguing she did not appear because “she didn’t want to lose her cash cow.”
Barrett reminded jurors that although the victim left school and moved out, she later obtained her GED and began working.
“Sexual gratification only takes one time,” Barrett argued. “I agree with Mr. Lilly, it only happened once, thank God.”
Addressing the charge of furnishing alcohol to a minor, Barrett told jurors, “One sip is more than enough.”
He concluded by asking jurors to use their common sense, review the text messages and determine what the state had proven.
JURY
RETURNS GUILTY VERDICTS
The jury began deliberations at 11:52 a.m. and returned to the courtroom twice seeking clarification on definitions and portions of the jury instructions.
At approximately 5:20 p.m., jurors returned guilty verdicts and then began deliberating punishment.
For second-degree sexual assault, jurors were instructed that the sentencing range was five to 20 years in the Arkansas Department of Correction and/or a fine of up to $15,000.
For knowingly furnishing alcohol to a minor, the possible punishment was up to one year in the county jail, a fine of up to $2,500, or both.
At approximately 6:35 p.m., the jury returned its sentencing recommendation: a $15,000 fine on the sexual assault conviction and one year in jail and a $2,500 fine for furnishing alcohol to a minor.
Rose was handcuffed and escorted from the courtroom by Sharp County Sheriff Shane Russell. He was transported to the Independence County Detention Center to serve the one-year jail sentence, with credit for three days previously served.
As a result of the sexual assault conviction, Rose will be required to register as a sex offender following his release and will no longer be eligible to work in law enforcement.
Rose has 30 days to file an appeal.
