Ark. Code Ann. § 16-85-706 (2026)

Case Notes

Deficiency in Indictment or Information.

Where an indictment or information may be deficient, that deficiency can be corrected by supplying the defendant with a bill of particulars, or other facts detailing the elements of the charge; the defendant may be sufficiently informed of the charges through supporting affidavits. Meny v. State, 314 Ark. 158, 861 S.W.2d 303 (1993).

Grounds.

It is no defense that former prosecuting attorney agreed to dismiss prosecution. Dillard v. State, 65 Ark. 404, 46 S.W. 533 (1898).

An indictment will not be quashed on the ground that the evidence introduced before the grand jury was insufficient to sustain it. State v. Fox, 122 Ark. 197, 182 S.W. 906 (1916); Murphy v. State, 171 Ark. 620, 286 S.W. 871, 48 A.L.R. 1189 (1926).

It is not proper to quash an indictment because of the character or quantum of evidence before the grand jury. McDonald v. State, 155 Ark. 142, 244 S.W. 20 (1922).

An indictment will not be quashed because the judge entered the jury room and charged the grand jury secretly. Yelvington v. State, 169 Ark. 498, 276 S.W. 353 (1925).

Motion to quash indictment on ground that it is not direct and certain as to the offense charged, that it is repugnant in the description of the offense, that it is duplex, that it is based on a statute originating a crime unknown to the common law, that it is not in the language of the statute or fully descriptive of the offense charged in the statute, was properly overruled, since those grounds could not be raised by motion to quash. Matz v. State, 196 Ark. 97, 116 S.W.2d 604 (1938).

—Formation of Jury.

It is irregular for the court to designate by name particular persons among the bystanders to complete the grand jury; but such irregularity would not invalidate all the proceedings of the grand jury, and is not sufficient ground for setting aside the indictment. Runnels v. State, 28 Ark. 121 (1872).

—Presentment.

The objection that the record does not show that the indictment was returned into court by the grand jury cannot be raised on appeal for the first time. Shinn v. State, 93 Ark. 290, 124 S.W. 263 (1910).

Reindictment.

Where an indictment presented by the regular grand jury had been set aside after the grand jury had been discharged, it was not an abuse of discretion to cause a special grand jury at the same term to be summoned to consider the charge against the defendant. Sutton v. State, 163 Ark. 562, 260 S.W. 409 (1924).

Time for Objection.

The proper time to object to the sufficiency of an indictment or information is prior to trial. Meny v. State, 314 Ark. 158, 861 S.W.2d 303 (1993); Sawyer v. State, 327 Ark. 421, 938 S.W.2d 843 (1997).

An objection to the form or sufficiency of an information must be made prior to trial. Ingram v. State, 48 Ark. App. 105, 891 S.W.2d 805 (1995).

Waiver.

When the grand jury has been impaneled and the indictment returned by them into court, irregularities in summoning or impaneling them and questions as to the qualifications of the jurors are waived by a plea of not guilty to the indictment. Shropshire v. State, 12 Ark. 190 (1851); Fenalty v. State, 12 Ark. 630 (1852); Brown v. State, 13 Ark. 96 (1852); Stewart v. State, 13 Ark. 720 (1853); Straughan v. State, 16 Ark. 37 (1855); Dixon v. State, 29 Ark. 165, 1874 Ark. LEXIS 22 (1874); Miller v. State, 40 Ark. 488, 1883 Ark. LEXIS 32 (1883); Wright v. State, 42 Ark. 94 (1883).

Cited: Rowland v. State, 213 Ark. 780, 213 S.W.2d 370 (1948); Prince v. State, 304 Ark. 692, 805 S.W.2d 46 (1991); Nance v. State, 323 Ark. 583, 918 S.W.2d 114 (1996).