Lloyd Lee Holt v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE
DIVISION I
CACR06-927
June 13, 2007
LLOYD LEE HOLT
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE JOHNSON
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR-03-164]
HON. JOHN S. PATTERSON,
CIRCUIT JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
A Johnson County jury convicted appellant Lloyd Lee Holt of negligent homicide, a
class A misdemeanor, and false imprisonment in the second degree, a class A misdemeanor,
and sentenced him to a fine of $1000 and twelve-months incarceration on each conviction,
to run concurrently. On appeal he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to establish that
he falsely imprisoned and negligently caused the death of his ten-year-old daughter, Molly
Holt, who burned to death while chained to her bed.1 He specifically argues that because the
State failed to prove that he actually placed the shackles on his daughter and that his daughter’s
death was caused by fire, not by the restraints, there was insufficient evidence to support either
of his convictions. We disagree and affirm.
1
The Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed his wife’s conviction for first-degree false
imprisonment in a separate case. Dick v. State, 364 Ark. 133, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2005).
On the evening of November 9, 2003, the home of Lloyd Holt and his wife, Teresa
Dick, burned. John Wood testified that he and his wife were out that night and observed
Holt, Dick, and two children walking up the road. According to Wood, he pulled up and
offered Holt the use of a cell phone. Holt responded that the authorities had already been
called and that there was “nobody else in the house, that the house was so far gone there was
nothing else to do.” Wood testified that after one of the children expressed concern about
Molly, Holt assured the child that Molly “left last night.” Wood then gave Holt and his family
a ride to Holt’s brother’s home.
Kim Parrish, the dispatcher for the sheriff’s office, testified that—contrary to Holt’s
assurance to Wood—the first call received relating to the fire at the Holt home was placed at
12:30 a.m., by Holt’s sister-in-law, Nicki Holt. Further testimony established that when
firefighters arrived at the scene, a skull was discovered under a metal bed frame, and the
sheriff’s office was called to assist in the investigation. Chief Deputy Jerry Dorney, of the
Johnson County Sheriff’s Department, testified that he observed a small metal bed frame and
the remains of a body partially underneath the bed frame. He also testified that he discovered
two padlocks sticking out of the rubble. He further stated that “there were bones before the
chain and after the chain,” which indicated that the leg was through the chain with the
padlocks attached. Dorney characterized the chain as a “dog chain.” Forensic anthropologist
Elayne Pope testified that the victim was underneath the bed as opposed to being on top,
because the chain was not draped over the top of the bedframe.
Although the body (which was later identified as Molly) was almost entirely consumed
2
by the fire, there was a residue of tissue at the hips that allowed testing of blood. From the
samples obtained, Dr. Stephan Erickson, the state-medical examiner, testified that the primary
cause of death was smoke and soot inhalation resulting in high carbon monoxide in Molly’s
system. He opined that the child was alive at the time of the fire.
Dick testified that Molly required supervision twenty-four hours a day, seven days a
week, due to severe and aggressive behavioral problems. This testimony was corroborated at
trial by Molly’s special-education teacher and the school’s principal. According to Dick, in
order to protect their other children from Molly and Molly from herself, Dick and Holt sat
down and discussed chaining Molly after the use of a rope failed because Molly kept untying
it. They decided that a method that would prohibit her from getting out of her bed was best.
Dick also noted that the key to the padlock was kept on top of the refrigerator and that Molly
was routinely chained after she fell asleep and unchained before she woke up.
Dick admitted that—on the night of the fire—she, not Holt, had chained Molly to the
bed. She further testified that on a few occasions Holt expressed concern with her decision
to chain Molly and that he was unaware that Molly was chained on the night of the fire. As
to the events relating to the fire, Dick stated that she awoke to Molly screaming and she and
Holt attempted to get to Molly’s bedroom at the front of the house, but the room was aflame,
and they could not reach her. She testified that Holt was throwing water in Molly’s room and
then inquired if Molly was chained—and if so—to get him the key. According to Dick, after
Holt determined that Molly was beyond help, he went out a window so that Dick could hand
3
the two younger children to him. After the younger two children were safe, she escaped
through a window, and the family then left to go to a neighbor’s house.
Deputy Dorney testified that Holt claimed he smelled something burning on the night
before the fire, went into Molly’s room to investigate, and noticed that she had put a piece
of paper in the space heater. Dorney also testified regarding a series of letters that Holt had
written while incarcerated. The letters contain a series of differing explanations for the crime.
In one letter, Holt admitted that following the fire all he did was “lie about everything.” In
another, he accuses Dick of intentionally setting the fire with gasoline and matches as part of
a lover’s-triangle plot. Yet another verison stated that he retrieved the key and was on his way
to free Molly, but he dropped it and could not recover it. Holt also detailed another scenario,
stating that he knew Molly was restrained but the fire was too advanced to save her, so he
took on the task of getting the others out safely.
John Holt (appellant’s cousin) testified that he had visited Holt’s home on several
occasions. One time, he noticed a chain dog leash with a hook on it. In response to an inquiry
about the chain, Holt explained that they used it to restrain Molly because she was
uncontrollable and that she was prone to starting fires.
Finally, Sergeant Kim Warren testified that as part of her investigation into the Holt
fire she interviewed Holt on November 10, 2003. She noted that at the time of the interview
she did not observe any injuries or burns on Holt. He told her that he had fallen asleep but
was startled awake around 11:00 p.m. or 11:30 p.m. by Dick’s screams for help. During the
interview, Holt claimed that he attempted to get to Molly’s room, but the smoke and flames
4
were overwhelming. Further, Holt told Warren that he told Wood, the concerned neighbor,
that everything was all right because there was nothing that anyone could do. He also
acknowledged that he was aware that Molly was restrained on the night of the fire (because
he had asked Dick if she had restrained Molly) but that he knew nothing about any chains
being used. He further claimed to have no prior knowledge of the chaining practice.
On appeal Holt argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction
for negligent homicide because he “never applied the chain to Molly.” A person commits
negligent homicide if he or she negligently causes the death of another person. Ark. Code
Ann. § 5-10-105 (Repl. 2006). It is not necessary that the actor be fully aware of a perceived
risk and recklessly disregarded it to have acted criminally negligently. Hunter v. State, 341 Ark.
665, 19 S.W.3d 607 (2000). It requires only a finding that the actor should have been aware
of the risk under the circumstances and that his failure to perceive it was a gross deviation
from the care a reasonable, prudent person would exercise under those circumstances. Id.
The series of letters Holt wrote relating to his knowledge of the crime are
contradictory yet compelling. In several of these letters he admits that he knew about the
chains and searched for a key. Also, Dick testified that she and Holt had discussed the logistics
of the chaining and together reached a decision as to how best to place the chain on the bed.
Holt’s cousin, John Holt, confirmed that Holt knew about the chaining. Further, Holt’s
neighbor’s testimony relating to Holt’s behavior immediately after the fire established that
Holt acted suspiciously. Further, both parents testified that Molly had a propensity for setting
fires and had attempted to set one as recently as the night before the fire. Thus, the evidence
5
established that Holt was acutely aware of the risk of fire and of the fact that Molly was being
chained at night. Based on these two factors, we are satisfied that Holt’s gross deviation from
the care he owed his daughter was negligence of criminal proportion.
Further, Holt’s proximate cause defense—that because Molly was killed by the event
of fire, not by the act of restraint—is unavailing. The independent intervening cause (fire) was
not of a substantial degree to eliminate Holt’s culpability. The intervening cause must be such
that the injury would not have been suffered except for the act or effect of the intervening
agent totally independent of the acts constituting the primary negligence. Jenkins v. State, 60
Ark. App. 122, 959 S.W.2d 427 (1998). Although Molly died of smoke inhalation and
carbon-monoxide poisoning, the fire alone was insufficient to cause her death. The reality
remains that all others safely exited the home, and, but for the fact that she was tied up, she
too would have had an opportunity to flee the fire.
Next we turn our attention to Holt’s argument that there was insufficient evidence to
support his false-imprisonment conviction, which is essentially the same as his negligent
homicide argument—that there was no evidence showing that he “knowingly” restrained
Molly because he was not the one who actually shackled her to the bed. He also argues
alternatively that he had lawful authority (as Molly’s parent) to chain her to the bed at night.2
A person commits false imprisonment in the second degree if, without consent and
without lawful authority, the person knowingly restrains another person so as to interfere with
2
Our supreme court has disposed of Holt’s alternative “authority” argument in his
wife’s companion appeal. See Dick v. State, 364 Ark. 133, ___ S.W.3d ___ (2005) (finding
that the act of chaining exceeded the scope of parental authority).
6
the other person’s liberty. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-11-104 (Repl. 1997). There is ample evidence
to show that Holt—at the very least—knew that Molly was being restrained nightly, thereby
establishing his liability as an accomplice to negligent homicide. That same liability establishes
that he is culpable for the underlying act of restraint—false imprisonment.
Accordingly, we find that there was sufficient evidence presented to support both the
negligent homicide and false-imprisonment convictions.
Affirmed.
B IRD and B AKER, JJ., agree.
7
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
