Ark. Code Ann. » Title 16 Chapter 43
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-43-601 (2020)

Definitions

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

As used in this subchapter, unless the context otherwise requires:

  1. “Court” means the circuit court for the judicial district of this state in which the proceeding is or may be held;
  2. “Grand jury” means any grand jury impaneled in accordance with the laws of this state;
  3. “Prosecuting attorney” means the prosecuting attorney for the judicial district of this state in which the proceeding is or may be held and includes his duly appointed deputies.

History. Acts 1973, No. 561, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 28-531.

Case Notes

Special Prosecutor.

A special prosecutor appointed pursuant to § 16-21-112 or § 16-21-116 or by the inherent power of the circuit court may request the court to require that a person testify upon being granted immunity as provided by this section. Weems v. Anderson, 257 Ark. 376, 516 S.W.2d 895 (1974).

Cited: Hammers v. State, 261 Ark. 585, 550 S.W.2d 432 (1977); Hodges v. Lamora, 337 Ark. 470, 989 S.W.2d 530 (1999).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases (3 in the last 5 years), 1994–2021 · leading case: Green v. State, 2012 Ark. 27.
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Green v. State, 2012 Ark. 27. · cites it 2× “2009) states that a “sex offender has immunity for a statement made by him or her in the course of assessment with respect to prior conduct under the immunity provisions of section 16-43-601 et seq.” Appellant contended that counsel was ineffective in failing to object to the…”
Trimble v. State, 871 S.W.2d 562 (Ark. 1994). · cites it 2× “In support of this point, he offers that the grant of immunity to Young was improper because it was “full transactional immunity” while the applicable statute, Ark. Code Ann. § 16-43-601 (1987), only permits “use immunity.”
Hodges v. Lamora, 989 S.W.2d 530 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2× “We initially observe that the sheriff did not grant Jody Lamora immunity from prosecution and, indeed, had no authority to do so.”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Steven Mitchell-62, 2021 Ark. App. 43. · cites it 2× “” Third, he argued that Arkansas Code Annotated section 12-12-917(b)(4)(B), declaring that “[a] sex offender has immunity for a statement made by him or her in the course of assessment with respect to prior conduct under the immunity provisions of section 16-43-601,” barred the…”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. v. Steven Mitchell-63, 2021 Ark. App. 53. · cites it 2× “There, we concluded that Mitchell’s guilty pleas to sexually assaulting J.C. and B.T. were insufficient, in and of themselves, to warrant a dependency-neglect finding regarding his own children.”
Arkansas Dep't of Human Servs. Crimes Against Child. Div. v. Steven D. Mitchell, 2021 Ark. 187. “Finally, contrary to Mitchell’s contention, the ALJ did not err in considering the statements that Mitchell made in his sex-offender assessment. Mitchell stresses that Arkansas Code Annotated section 12-12-917(b)(4)(B) provides immunity for statements made in the…”
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.