MOUNTAIN HOME, Ark. – A Gassville couple already facing 113 counts each for allegedly torturing a teenage boy by locking him naked in a bathroom for over a decade now confront additional felony charges, including rape, as the investigation uncovers more details of the abuse.
Jaclyn Barnett, 42, faces 40 new counts: 10 of rape of a person under 14 years old and unable to consent, 10 of sexual indecency with a child, 10 of false imprisonment with risk of injury, and 10 of second-degree sexual assault. Her husband, Daniel Wright, 41, faces additional charges of first-degree endangering the welfare of a minor and first-degree false imprisonment with risk of injury. Bonds are set at $1 million each for both defendants.
The couple was arrested Thursday by the Mansfield Police Department and transported to the Baxter County Detention Center early Friday morning after initially being booked in Sebastian County. When booked, both listed an address at a trailer park on North Division Street in Mansfield, a change from the Gassville address used in previous court documents. They had been free on $50,000 bond each on the original charges, with no conditions prohibiting relocation while awaiting trial.
The new charges stem from information uncovered during the investigation of the initial case, according to jail records. The abuse came to light in November 2024 when a 15-year-old boy was discovered locked in a bathroom at the couple’s Gassville home, secured from the outside with a ratchet strap. Court documents indicate he was forced to sleep on a pallet and was only allowed to eat on school days. The alleged mistreatment spanned approximately 11 years, during which the Arkansas Department of Human Services received and dismissed 29 abuse reports about the family as unsubstantiated.
Barnett and Wright had guardianship of the child, described by prosecutors as a biological family member of one of the defendants. The family previously lived in Northwest Arkansas before moving to Baxter County, with abuse reports filed in both locations. Mandated reporters, including teachers and school resource officers, had made calls, but all were closed without intervention.
The case prompted a legislative hearing in Little Rock last month, where DHS officials faced intense questioning from the joint House and Senate State Agencies and Government Affairs Committee about the dismissed reports. Baxter County Prosecutor David Ethredge testified, stating, “He was being malnourished, was not being fed. He was not being allowed to go to school at times. He was being restrained within the room that we have charged them with for substantial periods of time.”
Ethredge added that the child’s only relief appeared to be school, away from the home situation. He also noted this wasn’t his first encounter with DHS failures, citing two 2020 juvenile homicide cases where the offenders had prior DHS contact without intervention.
Division of Children and Family Services Director Tiffany Wright admitted no employees had been disciplined, stating, “There has not been disciplinary action for staff.” She also acknowledged the agency hadn’t searched its database for other children with similar patterns of unsubstantiated reports.
The couple’s trial on the original charges, initially scheduled for November 12-14, has been continued until January 12, 2026. Defense attorney James Hensley filed a motion November 3, noting “the parties agree that there is additional discovery to be completed before this matter can be heard before the court.” The prosecution did not object, and the continuance waived speedy trial rights. A court order signed November 4 confirmed the delay.
Court filings reveal a contentious battle over how the victim will testify at trial. Prosecutors filed an October 17 motion requesting special accommodations for the teenager, stating, “That the layout of the current courtroom in Baxter County, Arkansas has a testifying witness in close proximity to and facing the defendant—within 8 feet or so—and the witness is terrified of the defendant(s).”
5ELSGAA1LGZMMVOEP33FKTXTJ5KTN5The motion noted, “Even with appropriate security in place, the location of officers could potentially be more prejudicial than allowing the minor witness to sit out of the direct path and view of the Defendant.” It described the teenager as “now 16 he is socially awkward and developmentally delayed which the State attributes to the actions of the defendants over the past ten years.”
Hensley filed a sharp response on October 28, taking issue with calling the child a “victim,” stating, “The Defendant is presumed innocent of all charges until proved otherwise. Such claim by the Prosecutor is offensive and denotes an attitude of entitlement.”
The defense questioned the teenager’s credibility, stating, “Questionable Credibility — honesty and truthfulness of the alleged victim is in question.” Hensley cited professional conduct standards, adding, “A prosecutor has the responsibility of a minister of justice and not simply that of an advocate. This responsibility carries with it specific obligations to see that the defendant is accorded procedural justice and that guilt is decided upon the basis of sufficient evidence.”
GSCT3Z787BLIUGL1LSRKPL9XLXDCB6Hensley argued that accommodating the witness would violate his client’s constitutional rights, citing, “The right of confrontation provides two types of protection for a criminal defendant; the right physically to face those who testify against him and the opportunity to conduct effective cross-examination.”
The defense challenged the prosecution’s claims about the teenager’s condition, noting, “There has been no provision or testimony by any physician of any such reason for such violation save that of the prosecutor claiming the child is ‘socially awkward and developmentally delayed which the State attributes to the actions of the defendants over the last ten years.’ The prosecutor makes this self-serving claim without any medical proof or history.”
Upon information and belief, the defense stated the child has a biological brain disorder causing unsociable behavior, adding, “The Defendants have cared for the child for decades. No governmental agency has any founded claims against the Defendants according to the Arkansas Department of Human Services, the public school system, law enforcement, or any medical provider.”
Hensley demanded extensive discovery materials, including “all documentation of each claim against the Defendants for the last 12 years including the reason for 100% ‘Unsubstantiated’ findings by the Arkansas Department of Human Services.”
The defense’s witness list indicates plans to call teachers, friends, and family members to testify about the alleged victim’s behavior and what the filing describes as “the alleged victim having a brain defect which causes him to struggle with relationships of his family, school, medical providers, and the public.”
The filing states the defense has yet to receive contact information and records from teachers, medical professionals who treated the child, and Arkansas Department of Human Services personnel. The defense is seeking all communications, information, and documentation from these agencies, including medical records, treatment protocols, medicines used, and the full medical workup on the child’s treatment and prognosis.
The defense anticipates testimony will last approximately four hours for all witnesses and included a notice that it intends to use all private information from the Baxter County Prosecutor’s office regarding any meetings or interventions against governmental agencies.
During the legislative hearing, Ethredge praised the Mountain Home Police Department, stating, “I am grateful to the work they did. This would not have happened had they not done the work.”
The prosecutor described the best interests of the case in his motion: “That in the best interests of the minor witness, the alleged nature of the defendant, the confined space of the Baxter County Courtroom, and the security issues these concerns present, the State of Arkansas moves this Court to consider a different location in the Courtroom for the minor witnesses to testify.”
A November 17 court date has been set for proceedings on the new charges. Due to the nature of the case, most information including probable cause affidavits will remain sealed by the court. The couple last appeared in court October 20.
The teenager is now in foster care and receiving support from school district officials. The case has prompted calls for systemic reform in Arkansas’s child protection system, with the legislative committee voting to refer the matter to the Child Maltreatment Investigations Oversight Committee for deeper investigation into how the system failed to protect the child despite numerous warning signs over more than a decade.
