Ark. Code Ann. » Title 16 Chapter 112
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208 (2020)

Testing procedures — Definition

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
    1. A court that orders any deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing under this subchapter shall direct the testing to be carried out by the State Crime Laboratory.
      1. However, the court may order deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing by another qualified laboratory if the court makes all necessary orders to ensure the integrity of the specific evidence and the reliability of the testing process and test results.
      2. As used in this section, “qualified laboratory” means a laboratory that is accredited by the American Society of Crime Laboratory Directors or certified through the National Forensic Science Technology Center.
    3. The court may order the person who requested any deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing under this subchapter to pay for the cost of the testing if the court determines that the person has the ability to pay for the testing.
  2. If the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test results obtained under this subchapter are inconclusive, the court may order additional testing or deny further relief to the person who requested the testing.
    1. If deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test results obtained under this subchapter establish that the person who requested the testing was the source of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence, the court shall deny any relief to the person.
    2. On motion of the state, the court shall determine if the person's assertion of actual innocence was false. If the court finds that the person's assertion of actual innocence was false, the court may:
      1. Hold the person in contempt;
      2. Assess against the person the cost of any deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing carried out under this subchapter;
      3. Forward the finding to the Board of Corrections for consideration in the awarding of meritorious good time to the person; or
      4. Forward the finding to the Parole Board for consideration in the granting of parole to the person.
  4. In any prosecution of a person for perjury or other conduct resulting from a proceeding under this subchapter, upon conviction or a plea of guilty or nolo contendere the court shall sentence the person to a term of imprisonment that shall run consecutively to any other term of imprisonment the person is serving.
    1. If deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test results obtained under this subchapter exclude a person as the source of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence, the person may file a motion for a new trial or resentencing.
    2. The court shall establish a reasonable schedule for the person to file a motion under subdivision (e)(1) of this section and for the state to respond to the motion.
    3. The court may grant the motion of the person for a new trial or resentencing if the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test results, when considered with all other evidence in the case regardless of whether the evidence was introduced at trial, establish by compelling evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal.
  6. In a case in which a person is sentenced to death, any deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing ordered under this subchapter shall be completed:
    1. No later than sixty (60) days after the date on which the state responds to the motion described in §§ 16-112-202 and 16-112-203; or
    2. No later than one hundred twenty (120) days after the date on which the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing was ordered under any post-conviction testing procedures under this subchapter.
    1. The results of any deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing ordered under this subchapter shall be simultaneously disclosed to the court, the person that requested the testing, and the State of Arkansas.
      1. The state shall submit any test results relating to a person's deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) to the National DNA Index System.
      2. If the deoxyribonucleic acid test (DNA) results obtained under this subchapter are inconclusive or show that the person tested was the source of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence, the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample of the person tested may be retained in the system and State DNA Data Base.
      3. If the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test results obtained under this subchapter exclude the person tested as the source of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence but a comparison of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample of the person tested results in a match between the person's sample and another offense, the State Crime Laboratory shall notify the appropriate agency and preserve the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample of the person tested.
      4. The State Crime Laboratory shall destroy the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample of the person tested and ensure that the information is not retained in the system or the data base if:
        1. The deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) test results obtained under this subchapter exclude the person tested as the source of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) evidence;
        2. A comparison of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) sample through a search of the data base or system does not match the person's sample and another offense; and
        3. There is no other legal authority to retain the sample of the person tested in the data base or system.

History. Acts 2005, No. 2250, § 4.

Cross References. Perjury generally, § 5-53-102.

Research References

ALR.

Validity, Construction, and Application of State Statutes and Rules Governing Requests for Postconviction DNA Testing. 72 A.L.R.6th 227.

Case Notes

Conclusive Results.

Where it was undisputed that the results of a DNA test conclusively excluded three codefendants as the source of the DNA evidence tested, subsection (b) of this section was inapplicable and the trial court erred in denying one defendant's motion for new trial under that subsection. Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417, 373 S.W.3d 892 (2010).

Motion for New Trial.

Where defendant was convicted on three counts of capital murder and sentenced to death, subdivision (e)(3) of this section did not require defendant to present a compelling claim of actual innocence on a motion for new trial, brought under the Arkansas DNA testing statutes, §§ 16-112-201 to 16-112-208, but stated that defendant had to establish by compelling evidence that a new trial would result in an acquittal. Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417, 373 S.W.3d 892 (2010).

No Constitutional Right.

Court rejected defendant's argument that he had a constitutional right to additional testing under the due process clause of Ark. Const. Art. 2, § 8. When DNA test results matched the person requesting additional testing, it was not fundamentally unfair to refuse additional testing. Isom v. State, 2010 Ark. 496, 372 S.W.3d 809 (2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1023, 131 S. Ct. 3029, 180 L. Ed. 2d 853 (2011).

Relief Properly Denied.

Circuit court did not abuse its discretion in denying defendant's postconviction request for additional DNA testing under subsection (b) of this section as an earlier postconviction DNA test did not exclude him as the source of the DNA evidence and further testing of third parties would not conclusively eliminate him as the source. Isom v. State, 2010 Ark. 496, 372 S.W.3d 809 (2010), cert. denied, 564 U.S. 1023, 131 S. Ct. 3029, 180 L. Ed. 2d 853 (2011).

Denial of inmate's petition for habeas corpus under §§ 16-112-201 to 16-112-208 was appropriate because he had sought and received DNA testing, the results of which were inconclusive and the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory did not have a duty to perform, or direct to be performed, additional mitochondrial DNA testing under subsection (b) of this section. Pitts v. State, 2011 Ark. 322 (2011).

Cited: Hill v. State, 2012 Ark. 204 (2012).

Chapter 113 Injunctions

Publisher's Notes. Some provisions of this chapter may be superseded by Ark. R. Civ. P. 65.

Research References

ALR.

Recovery of damages resulting from wrongful issuance of injunction as limited to amount of bond. 30 A.L.R.4th 273.

Ark. L. Rev.

Minimum Standards of Judicial Administration — Arkansas, 5 Ark. L. Rev. 1.

Subchapter 1 — General Provisions

Cross References. Injunctions and temporary restraining orders, Ark. R. Civ. P. 65.

Research References

Am. Jur. 42 Am. Jur. 2d, Inj., § 1 et seq.

C.J.S. 43A C.J.S., Inj., § 1 et seq.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 5 cases, 2010–2020 · leading case: Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417, 373 S.W.3d 892.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417, 373 S.W.3d 892. · cites it 29× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208 (e) (Repl. 2006).”
Sanders Carter v. State of Arkansas, 2020 Ark. 219, 600 S.W.3d 612. · cites it 29× “3d 892, 899 ; see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208 (b), (c)(1), (e)(1).”
Stacey Eugene Johnson v. State of Arkansas, 2019 Ark. 391, 591 S.W.3d 265. · cites it 4× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208 (b) (emphasis added).”
Isom v. State, 2010 Ark. 496, 372 S.W.3d 809. · cites it 4× “Nevertheless, because the statute at issue in the instant case says that the court “may order” additional testing upon a finding of inconclusiveness, we conclude that the [(¡standard of abuse of discretion applies when the trial court denies relief under section 16-112-208(b).…”
Hutcherson v. State, 2014 Ark. 326, 438 S.W.3d 909. · cites it 4× “On May 30, 2013, he filed a “motion for new trial,” requesting that the videotape of the robbery of the Texaco station on Ninth Street be tested under section 16-112-208 and again requesting the fingerprint and DNA testing sought in the May 9, 2013 motion.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208(b): 3 cases
Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417, 373 S.W.3d 892. “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208 (e) (Repl. 2006).”
Isom v. State, 2010 Ark. 496, 372 S.W.3d 809. “Nevertheless, because the statute at issue in the instant case says that the court “may order” additional testing upon a finding of inconclusiveness, we conclude that the [(¡standard of abuse of discretion applies when the trial court denies relief under section 16-112-208(b).…”
Sanders Carter v. State of Arkansas, 2020 Ark. 219, 600 S.W.3d 612. “3d 892, 899 ; see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208 (b), (c)(1), (e)(1).”
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208(e): 2 cases
Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417, 373 S.W.3d 892. “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208 (e) (Repl. 2006).”
Sanders Carter v. State of Arkansas, 2020 Ark. 219, 600 S.W.3d 612. “3d 892, 899 ; see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208 (b), (c)(1), (e)(1).”
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208(e)(3): 1 case
Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417, 373 S.W.3d 892. “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208 (e) (Repl. 2006).”
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208(e)(8): 1 case
Echols v. State, 2010 Ark. 417, 373 S.W.3d 892. “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208 (e) (Repl. 2006).”
Ark. Code Ann. § 16-112-208(e)(l): 1 case
Hutcherson v. State, 2014 Ark. 326, 438 S.W.3d 909. “On May 30, 2013, he filed a “motion for new trial,” requesting that the videotape of the robbery of the Texaco station on Ninth Street be tested under section 16-112-208 and again requesting the fingerprint and DNA testing sought in the May 9, 2013 motion.”
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.