Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-41-101 (2026)

[Repealed.]

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2013, No. 1148, contained two sections designated as “SECTION 2”.

Publisher's Notes. This chapter, concerning the Uniform Rules of Evidence, was repealed by Acts 2013, No. 1148, § 2[7]. The chapter was derived from Acts 1975 (Extended Sess. 1976), No. 1143, § 1; 1985, No. 405, § 1; 1985, No. 462, § 1; reen. Acts 1987, No. 876, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 28-1001; Acts 1991, No. 361, § 1; 1992 (1st Ex. Sess.), No. 66, § 1; 1997, No. 794, § 1; 2001, No. 629, § 1.

Chapter 42 Sexual Offenses

Effective Dates. Acts 1977, No. 197, § 5: Feb. 18, 1977. Emergency clause provided: “It has been found and is declared by the General Assembly of Arkansas that the introduction of opinion evidence, reputation evidence, and evidence of specific instances of the victim's prior sexual conduct with the defendant or any other person, where such evidence does not directly pertain to the prosecution upon which the act is based, and the absence of a pretrial hearing on the admissibility of this evidence, has kept many victims of sex crimes from testifying against their attackers, has obscured the facts in sexual assault cases to the extent that juries have often reached improper verdicts, and has greatly hampered the administration of criminal justice in Arkansas. Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist, and this Act being necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall take effect and be in force from the date of its approval.”

Acts 1985, No. 444, § 3: Mar. 20, 1985. Emergency clause provided: “It is hereby found and determined by the General Assembly that young children who have been victims of sexual crimes suffer tremendous physical and mental trauma. Such trauma is compounded when the child must recount the crime in open court in unfamiliar surroundings. The General Assembly hereby finds that currently there is no provision in Arkansas law that authorizes the victim's parents or legal guardian be present in court during the examination and cross-examination of the child during the trial. Therefore, current law inadequately protects the mental well-being of the minors in this State and this Act is necessary to correct this problem. Therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Act, being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage and approval.”

Acts 2005, No. 536, § 2: Mar. 3, 2005. Emergency clause provided: “It is found and determined by the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas that there is no rule or statute that allows the introduction of evidence of a defendant's commission of another sexual assault in a criminal case; and that such a rule or statute is necessary to assist in the prosecution of sexual assaults. Therefore, an emergency is declared to exist and this act being immediately necessary for the preservation of the public peace, health, and safety shall become effective on: (1) The date of its approval by the Governor; (2) If the bill is neither approved nor vetoed by the Governor, the expiration of the period of time during which the Governor may veto the bill; or (3) If the bill is vetoed by the Governor and the veto is overridden, the date the last house overrides the veto.”

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 11 cases, 1988–2005 · leading case: Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399 (1998). · cites it 3× “, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-41-101 , Rule 502(c) (Supp.”

In Re the Investigation of the Death of Miller, 584 S.E.2d 772 (N.C. 2003). “503(c) (2002); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-41-101 , Rule 502(c) (2002); Cal.”

Fuselier v. State, 702 So. 2d 388 (Miss. 1997). “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-41-101 (Rule 601). See also Ga.”

United States v. James Montgomery, United States of Am. v. Mary O'COnnOr, 384 F.3d 1050 (9th Cir. 2004). “§ 12-2232, 13-4062; Ark.Code Ann. § 16-41-101 (Rule 504); Cal.”

Dansby v. State, 1 S.W.3d 403 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2× “” See also, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-41-101 (1987). However, Ark.”

HCA Health Servs. of Midwest, Inc. v. Nat'l Bank of Com., 745 S.W.2d 120 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 2× “407, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-41-101 (1987). 2 While such remedial changes reflected in Kinder’s testimony may be excludable under Rule 407, we fail to see the prejudice since the same subject matter was fully covered without objection in Firestone’s testimony.”

Harlan v. Lewis, 141 F.R.D. 107 (W.D. Ark. 1992). · cites it 2× “In Arkansas, the physician-patient privilege, set out in Rule 503 of the Uniform Rules of Evidence, A.C.A. § 16-41-101, grants a patient the privilege of preventing “any other person from disclosing confidential communications 7 made for the purpose of diagnosis or treatment of…”

Gould, Larson, Bennet, Wells & McDonnell, P.C. v. Panico, 869 A.2d 653 (Conn. 2005). “502 (d) (2) (1996); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-41-101 , Rule 502 (Sup.”

Matter of ADB, 778 P.2d 945 (Okla. Civ. App. 1989). “§ 13-1416 (1987); Uniform Evidence Rule 803(25)(A), Ark. Code Ann. § 16-41-101 (1987); Cal.Evid.”

State v. Bates, 778 P.2d 945 (Okla. Civ. App. 1989). “§ 13-1416 (1987); Uniform Evidence Rule 803(25)(A), Ark.Code Ann. § 16-41-101 (1987); Cal.Evid.”

Eric Fuselier v. State of MS (Miss. 1995). “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-41-101 (Rule 601). See also Ga.”

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.