Ark. Code Ann. § 16-85-410 (2020)
[Repealed.]
Publisher's Notes. This section, concerning second indictments, was repealed by Acts 2005, No. 1994, § 504. The section was derived from Rev. Stat., ch. 45, § 90; C. & M. Dig., § 3037; Pope's Dig., § 3861; A.S.A. 1947, § 43-1031.
Subchapter 5 — Grand Jury Proceedings
Effective Dates. Acts 1871, No. 28, § 20: effective 60 days after passage.
Acts 1883, No. 49, § 3: effective on passage.
Acts 1889, No. 62, § 4: June 1, 1889.
Acts 1933, No. 29, § 3: approved Feb. 14, 1933. Emergency clause provided: “Whereas, grand juries, prosecuting attorneys and judges of the circuit courts of this State are in many instances being handicapped and delayed in the discharge of their duties because of the want of any provision for expeditious and adequate recording and reporting of the proceedings of grand juries, and such delays result in additional and unnecessary expense to the State and counties, and it is desirable that said condition be immediately remedied; now therefore, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Act shall take effect and be in force immediately from and after its passage.”
Acts 1949, No. 254, § 3: approved Mar. 8, 1949. Emergency clause provided: “Whereas, it is necessary to amend and improve judicial procedure and criminal law in connection with the privilege of editors, reporters, writers and radio stations and to clarify the same and this Act being necessary for the immediate preservation of the public peace, health and safety, an emergency is hereby declared to exist and this Act shall be in full force and effect from and after its passage.”
Acts 1983, No. 176, § 3: Feb. 15, 1983. Emergency clause provided: “The General Assembly hereby finds that there is presently no method by which the State of Arkansas can secure the attendance of witnesses before the grand jury when there is a probability the witness will absent himself therefrom. For the efficient and fair administration of justice, a system similar to the federal law on securing testimony of material witnesses, 18 U.S.C. Section 3149, is highly desirable. 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.”
Research References
ALR.
Validity of indictment as affected by substitution or addition of grand jurors after commencement of investigation. 2 A.L.R.4th 980.
Finding or return of indictment, or filing of information, as tolling limitation period. 18 A.L.R.4th 1202.
Failure to swear or irregularity in swearing witnesses appearing before grand jury as ground for dismissal of indictment. 23 A.L.R.4th 154.
Presence of unauthorized persons during state grand jury proceedings as affecting indictment. 23 A.L.R.4th 397.
Individual's right to present complaint or evidence of criminal offense to grand jury. 24 A.L.R.4th 316.
Am. Jur. 38 Am. Jur. 2d, Grand J., § 32 et seq.
Ark. L. Rev.
Theory of Testimonial Competency and Privilege, 4 Ark. L. Rev. 377.
Witness Privileges, 15 Ark. L. Rev. 93.
Evidence — Informer's Privilege Before a Grand Jury, 23 Ark. L. Rev. 128.
Privileges, 27 Ark. L. Rev. 200.
Gingerich, The Arkansas Grand Jury, etc., 40 Ark. L. Rev. 55.
C.J.S. 38 C.J.S., Grand J., § 37 et seq.
U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.
Note: An Equitable Treatment of Unauthorized Prosecutorial Promises of Immunity, 1 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 389.
Watkins, The Journalist's Privilege in Arkansas, 7 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 473.
Case Notes
Unconstitutional Exclusion.
Members of classes of citizens unconstitutionally excluded from selection as grand jurors could, as representatives of such excluded classes, bring an action to establish the unconstitutionality of such selection and enjoin the functioning of such grand jury, even though there was no reason to believe that such person would be the subject of any grand jury action. Jewell v. Stebbins, 288 F. Supp. 600 (E.D. Ark. 1968).