Ark. Code Ann. » Title 16 Chapter 32
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-32-303 (2026)

Judicial determination of need for expanded list

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. The administrative circuit judge for each county shall determine that either the list of registered voters or the enhanced list, but not both, shall be utilized in the selection of all prospective jurors for all circuit court divisions within the county, based upon a consideration of whether the use of registered voters creates a sufficient pool for the selection of jurors to offer an adequate cross section of the community.
  2. If the judge determines that the enhanced prospective juror list, as described in § 16-32-302, should be used by the county, then the judge on or before October 1 shall inform the circuit clerk who shall notify the Secretary of State and the Administrative Office of the Courts that the enhanced list will be requested for the county.

History. Acts 2003, No. 1404, § 3; 2005, No. 87, § 10.

RESEARCH REFERENCES

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2005 Arkansas General Assembly, Practice, Procedure, and Courts, 28 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 377.

Case Notes

Enhancement Not Warranted.

In a capital murder case, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by failing to enhance the prospective jury pool because the decision to use a list of registered voters instead of a list of licensed drivers was clearly within the court's discretion pursuant to this section. In addition, the jury venire was randomly selected by a computer program and race was not identified. Thomas v. State, 370 Ark. 70, 257 S.W.3d 92, cert. denied, 552 U.S. 1025, 128 S. Ct. 620, 169 L. Ed. 2d 399 (2007).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 3 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 2007–2021 · leading case: Thomas v. State, 257 S.W.3d 92 (Ark. 2007).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Thomas v. State, 257 S.W.3d 92 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 7× “Jury Pool For his second point on appeal, Appellant argues that the trial court abused its discretion by failing to enhance the prospective jury pool pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 16-32-301 and Ark. Code Ann.”
Navarro v. State, 264 S.W.3d 530 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 16-32-303 (Supp. 2007). Our court has been unwilling to mandate use of the enhanced list.”
Lentonio Marcell Jenner v. State of Arkansas, 2021 Ark. App. 26 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021). “After Penn’s testimony, counsel for Jenner introduced a letter from the Washington County Circuit Court Clerk that states: In accordance with the provisions of ACA 16-32-303(b), please be advised that the circuit judges of the 4th Judicial Circuit have decided by unanimous vote…”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-32-303(b) — 1 case
Lentonio Marcell Jenner v. State of Arkansas, 2021 Ark. App. 26 (Ark. Ct. App. 2021). “After Penn’s testimony, counsel for Jenner introduced a letter from the Washington County Circuit Court Clerk that states: In accordance with the provisions of ACA 16-32-303(b), please be advised that the circuit judges of the 4th Judicial Circuit have decided by unanimous vote…”
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.