Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-85-301 (2026)

Bill of particulars

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. The bill of particulars required by law in criminal cases shall state the action relied upon by the state in sufficient detail as required by an indictment prior to March 1, 1937, that is, with sufficient certainty to apprise the defendant of the specific crime with which charged, in order to enable him or her to prepare his or her defense.
  2. A supplemental bill of particulars may be required upon order of the trial court if the bill of particulars filed by the prosecuting attorney is not sufficiently definite to apprise the defendant of the specific crime with which he or she is charged.
  3. When a bill of particulars is filed with the clerk, a copy of it shall be furnished to the defendant upon his or her request.

History. Acts 1937, No. 160, §§ 4, 5; Pope's Dig., §§ 3796, 3797; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 43-804, 43-805.

Case Notes

Purpose.

The purpose of a bill of particulars is to acquaint the defense with sufficient information so that a defense can be prepared. Edens v. State, 235 Ark. 996, 363 S.W.2d 923 (1963); Limber v. State, 264 Ark. 479, 572 S.W.2d 402 (1978); David v. State, 295 Ark. 131, 748 S.W.2d 117 (1988); Nance v. State, 323 Ark. 583, 918 S.W.2d 114 (1996), cert. denied, Nance v. Arkansas, 519 U.S. 847, 117 S. Ct. 134, 136 L. Ed. 2d 83 (1996).

Discovery.

Defendant in a criminal proceeding may not use a motion denominated as a motion for a bill of particulars as a discovery vehicle. Edens v. State, 235 Ark. 996, 363 S.W.2d 923 (1963).

In the absence of prejudice, there is no error in failing to supply a bill of particulars when complete discovery has been granted. Limber v. State, 264 Ark. 479, 572 S.W.2d 402 (1978).

Discretion of Court.

The trial court, using discretion, can grant or deny the request for a bill of particulars. Burnett v. State, 287 Ark. 158, 697 S.W.2d 95 (1985), overruled in part, Midgett v. State, 292 Ark. 278, 729 S.W.2d 410 (1987).

Noncompliance.

Where the prosecutor failed to comply properly with defendant's discovery motion requesting names of all state witnesses and also improperly withheld the details of the alleged crime which should have been set out in the state's bill of particulars, defendant's conviction was reversed. Masingill v. State, 7 Ark. App. 90, 644 S.W.2d 614 (1983).

Sufficiency.

Indictment or information held to be sufficiently specific that bill of particulars not required. Perkins v. State, 217 Ark. 252, 230 S.W.2d 1 (1950); Willis v. State, 221 Ark. 162, 252 S.W.2d 618 (1952); Silas v. State, 232 Ark. 248, 337 S.W.2d 644 (1960), cert. denied, Silas v. Arkansas, 365 U.S. 821, 81 S. Ct. 705 (1961); Nance v. State, 323 Ark. 583, 918 S.W.2d 114 (1996), cert. denied, Nance v. Arkansas, 519 U.S. 847, 117 S. Ct. 134, 136 L. Ed. 2d 83 (1996).

Information in conjunction with bill held sufficient. Lee v. State, 229 Ark. 354, 315 S.W.2d 916 (1958), cert. denied, Lee v. Arkansas, 359 U.S. 930, 79 S. Ct. 616 (1959).

Defendant was not entitled to a bill of particulars, pursuant to subsection (a) of this section; a bill of particulars as to the precise time offenses were committed was not necessary because time was not material to allegations of rape and sexual assault in the second degree. Wallis v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 238, 374 S.W.3d 737 (2010).

Supplemental Bill.

If, in prosecution on charge of obtaining money under false pretenses, the defendant filed a motion for a bill of particulars which was not definite and full, the defendant had the right to require the filing of a supplemental bill of particulars. Mortensen v. State, 214 Ark. 528, 217 S.W.2d 325 (Ark. 1949).

The defense may request that the state provide more details of the crime in a bill of particulars, and if defendant is not satisfied, he can seek a supplemental bill of particulars. David v. State, 295 Ark. 131, 748 S.W.2d 117 (1988).

Cited: Haller v. State, 217 Ark. 646, 232 S.W.2d 829 (1950); Ragsdale v. State, 222 Ark. 499, 262 S.W.2d 91 (1953); Powell v. State, 251 Ark. 46, 471 S.W.2d 333 (1971); Caton v. State, 252 Ark. 420, 479 S.W.2d 537 (1972); Flaherty v. State, 255 Ark. 187, 500 S.W.2d 87 (1973).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 1988–2014 · leading case: David v. State, 748 S.W.2d 117 (Ark. 1988).
David v. State, 748 S.W.2d 117 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 4× “2d 402 (1978); see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-85-301 (1987). If he was not satisfied, he could have sought a supplemental bill of particulars.”
Norris v. State, 427 S.W.3d 626 (Ark. 2013). · cites it 2× “3d 894 (per curiam); see also Ark.Code Ann. § 16-85-301(a) (Repl.2005).”
Grant v. State, 365 S.W.3d 894 (Ark. 2010). · cites it 2× “2d 114 (1996); see also Ark.Code Ann. § 16-85-301(a) (Repl.2005).”
Nance v. State, 918 S.W.2d 114 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 2× “2d 923 (1963); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-85-301 (a) (1987). As we stated above, where the information is definite in specifying the offense being charged, as in this case, the charge itself constitutes a bill of particulars.”
Dodge v. State, 2014 Ark. 116 (Ark. 2014). · cites it 2× “3d 894 (per curiam); see also Ark. Code Ann. § 16-85-301 (a) (Repl. 2005).”
Wallis v. State, 374 S.W.3d 737 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 2× “He argues that had the State been able to identify specific dates that criminal activity was alleged to have occurred, he would have been better able to prepare a defense or possibly provide an alibi as to his whereabouts on that date.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-85-301(a) — 3 cases
Norris v. State, 427 S.W.3d 626 (Ark. 2013). “3d 894 (per curiam); see also Ark.Code Ann. § 16-85-301(a) (Repl.2005).”
Grant v. State, 365 S.W.3d 894 (Ark. 2010). “2d 114 (1996); see also Ark.Code Ann. § 16-85-301(a) (Repl.2005).”
Wallis v. State, 374 S.W.3d 737 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). “He argues that had the State been able to identify specific dates that criminal activity was alleged to have occurred, he would have been better able to prepare a defense or possibly provide an alibi as to his whereabouts on that date.”
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.