Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-105 (2020)

Sittings of courts to be public

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

The sittings of every court shall be public, and every person may freely attend the sittings of every court.

History. Rev. Stat., ch. 43, § 19; C. & M. Dig., § 2103; Pope's Dig., § 2707; A.S.A. 1947, § 22-109.

Research References

Ark. L. Notes.

Watkins, Keeping the Courthouse Doors Open, 1984 Ark. L. Notes 51.

Ark. L. Rev.

Watkins, Open Meetings Under the Arkansas Freedom of Information Act, 38 Ark. L. Rev. 268.

Notes, The Free Press-Fair Trial Controversy: A New Standard for Closure Motions in Criminal Proceedings, 38 Ark. L. Rev. 403.

Case Notes

Applicability.

This section prohibits a trial court judge from excluding members of the public from a “Denno” hearing conducted pursuant to § 16-89-107 and from excluding a newspaper reporter unless she agrees to a censorship of any story she might write about the hearing. Shiras v. Britt, 267 Ark. 97, 589 S.W.2d 18 (1979).

Jury Selection.

Jury selection is a stage of the proceedings where openness is particularly appropriate under the guarantee of a public trial provided for in U.S. Const., Amend. 6, Ark. Const., Art. 2, § 10, and this section. Memphis Publishing Co. v. Burnett, 316 Ark. 176, 871 S.W.2d 359 (1994).

Presence of Officers.

In trials attracting large audiences, it is not improper to have enough officers to enforce order and to protect the accused from violence and to prevent his escape or possible rescue. Thus, in prosecution for murder, presence in the courtroom of numerous officers in uniform as well as certain United States Marines who attended either as spectators or as witnesses, the deceased having been a Marine, was a matter within the discretion of the trial court. Rayburn v. State, 200 Ark. 914, 141 S.W.2d 532 (1940).

Pretrial Proceedings.

In order to overcome the presumption of open pretrial hearings, the proponent of closure must demonstrate a substantial probability that (1) irreparable damage to the defendant's fair trial right will result from an open hearing, and (2) alternatives to closure will not adequately protect the right to a fair trial. Additionally, the trial court's findings must be articulated and sufficiently specific to demonstrate on review that these requirements have been satisfied. Arkansas Television Co. v. Tedder, 281 Ark. 152, 662 S.W.2d 174 (1983).

Pretrial proceedings and their record must be open to the public, including representatives of the news media, and before an exception to that general rule is made, the test set out in Arkansas Television Co. v. Tedder, 281 Ark. 152, 662 S.W.2d 174 (1983), must be met; if that standard is met and a pleading is ordered sealed, it must be opened to the public as soon as the probability of irreparable damage to the accused's right to a fair trial no longer exists. Arkansas Newspaper, Inc. v. Patterson, 281 Ark. 213, 662 S.W.2d 826 (1984).

Pretrial proceedings should not have been closed to the public where there was no showing that a substantial probability that irreparable damage to the defendant's fair trial right would result from an open hearing and that alternatives to closure would not adequately protect the right to a fair trial. Arkansas Newspaper, Inc. v. Patterson, 281 Ark. 213, 662 S.W.2d 826 (1984).

Requirement Met.

Circuit court's decision to hold the trial in chambers over a corporation's objection was affirmed where the trial was transcribed by a court reporter, the public had access to the proceedings so that it could ascertain whether the court was properly carrying out its duties responsibly, and counsel for the corporation admitted in oral argument that he could not say whether the in-chambers trial affected the outcome of the case. Ashley Bancstock Co. v. Meredith, 2017 Ark. App. 598, 534 S.W.3d 762 (2017).

Voir Dire.

The trial court lacks the authority to prohibit the public and press from the voir dire examination. Commercial Printing Co. v. Lee, 262 Ark. 87, 553 S.W.2d 270 (1977).

In accordance with this section and Ark. Const., Art. 2, § 10, the voir dire examination of the jury must be held in open court; the right to an open trial may be asserted by the public, the press, and the accused. Taylor v. State, 284 Ark. 103, 679 S.W.2d 797 (1984).

Cited: In re Arkansas Bar Ass'n, 271 Ark. 358, 609 S.W.2d 28 (1980); Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hardy, 316 Ark. 119, 871 S.W.2d 352 (1994).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1991–2025 · leading case: Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hardy, 871 S.W.2d 352 (Ark. 1994).
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Hardy, 871 S.W.2d 352 (Ark. 1994). · cites it 2× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-105 (1987). However, other statutes provide that particular proceedings may be closed under certain circumstances.”
Ashley Bancstock Co. v. Meredith, 2017 Ark. App. 598, 534 S.W.3d 762. · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-105 (Repl. 2010). Furthermore, “the public has every right .”
Stephens v. Stephens, 810 S.W.2d 946 (Ark. 1991). · cites it 2× “She claims the closure is violative of her First Amendment rights to an open trial which, she argues, the state guarantees under Ark. Code Ann. § 16-10-105 (1987). Appellee responds the lower court’s order is interlocutory, not final, and therefore not applicable.”
Memphis Publ'g Co. v. Burnett, 871 S.W.2d 359 (Ark. 1994). · cites it 2× “In Lee, we discussed what occurs at voir dire and why it should be an open process: Normally, lawyers ask prospective jurors if they know anything about the facts of the case — if they have talked with any person concerning the facts who purports to be a witness — if they are…”
Aaron Spencer v. State of Arkansas, 2025 Ark. 91, 712 S.W.3d 296. · cites it 2× “16 He cites Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-10-105 (Repl. 2010), which provides: “The sittings of every court shall be public, and every person may freely attend the sittings of every court.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.