Ark. Code Ann. § 16-86-102 (2020)
Examination and observation generally
-
-
Whenever a prosecution for any crime has been instituted in the circuit court by indictment or information, the court, subject to the provisions of §§ 5-2-304 and 5-2-311, shall immediately suspend all further proceedings in the prosecution if:
- The defendant files notice that he or she intends to rely upon the defense of mental disease or defect; or
- There is reason to believe that mental disease or defect of the defendant will or has become an issue in the case;
- The defendant files notice that he or she will put in issue his or her fitness to proceed; or
- There is reason to doubt his or her fitness to proceed.
- If a trial jury has been impaneled, the court may retain the jury or declare a mistrial and discharge the jury.
- A discharge of the jury shall not be a bar to future prosecution.
-
Whenever a prosecution for any crime has been instituted in the circuit court by indictment or information, the court, subject to the provisions of §§ 5-2-304 and 5-2-311, shall immediately suspend all further proceedings in the prosecution if:
-
- Upon the issuance of an order for the examination and observation of the defendant, the court shall direct the circuit clerk to notify the prosecuting attorney and the counsel for the defendant of the issuance of the order.
-
- The action of the court in ordering that the defendant undergo examination and observation shall not preclude the state or the defendant from calling expert witnesses to testify at the trial.
- The expert witness shall have free access to the defendant for the purpose of observation and examination when the defendant is in the custody of local, county, or state law enforcement or state mental health facilities.
History. Acts 1971, No. 433, ch. 6, § 7; 1973, No. 95, § 1; 1983, No. 191, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 43-1301; Acts 2001, No. 1551, § 2.
Amendments. The 2001 amendment rewrote this section.
Cross References. Access to defendant by examiners of his choice, § 5-2-306.
Case Notes
Purpose.
Purpose of former similar section was to have the accused, whose sanity was questioned, examined in advance of his trial by competent, impartial and disinterested physicians, who would make a report upon the sanity of the accused, subject to the right of either the prosecution or defense to have the physicians who prepared the report summoned as witnesses at the trial for examination and cross-examination. Jones v. State, 204 Ark. 61, 161 S.W.2d 173, 1942 Ark. LEXIS 14 (1942) (decision under prior law).
Appeal.
The Supreme Court could not, on appeal, direct an inquiry into defendant's sanity. O'Neal v. State, 111 Ark. 42, 163 S.W. 793 (1914) (decision under prior law).
Commitment to Hospital.
Confinement in jail rather than commitment to state hospital was not ground for reversal of conviction so long as the accused, pleading insanity, was given a prompt and impartial examination by a competent psychiatrist. Chitwood v. State, 210 Ark. 367, 196 S.W.2d 241 (1946) (decision under prior law).
This section does not require a defendant to be sent to the hospital until after a plea of insanity. Kozal v. State, 264 Ark. 587, 573 S.W.2d 323 (1978).
Denial of Examination.
Defendant's conviction was required to be set aside where the state trial court arbitrarily denied defendant's attempts to avail himself of the established state procedures whereby a mental examination at the state hospital could be obtained. Ellingburg v. Lockhart, 397 F. Supp. 771 (E.D. Ark. 1975).
Where the record did not indicate that the trial court was ever apprised of the results of the asserted incomplete psychiatric examination, the trial court did not abuse its discretion by refusing a continuance for psychiatric examination. Derrick v. State, 259 Ark. 316, 532 S.W.2d 431 (1976).
The trial court did not abuse its discretion in failing to direct defendant to undergo further psychiatric observation, where defendant had been psychologically evaluated in compliance with this section. Clark v. State, 260 Ark. 479, 541 S.W.2d 683 (1976).
Where the defendant was examined at both the state hospital and a regional mental health facility, the court did not err in refusing to retain a private psychiatrist for the defendant at state expense. White v. State, 290 Ark. 130, 717 S.W.2d 784 (1986).
Discretion of Court.
Overruling motion to set aside judgment entered on plea of guilty and allowing defendant to enter a plea of insanity and ordering him taken to state penitentiary to serve sentence, following report of examination made by State Hospital pursuant to judge's order, was not abuse of discretion. Gunter v. State, 202 Ark. 551, 151 S.W.2d 85 (1941) (decision under prior law).
The court did not have discretion to deny defendant's motion for examination and a denial was erroneous. Lambert v. State, 213 Ark. 567, 211 S.W.2d 431 (1948) (decision under prior law).
While in certain instances the trial court could commit a defendant to the state hospital for mental examination, it had no authority to appoint a commission to make an examination. Green v. State, 222 Ark. 308, 259 S.W.2d 142 (1953) (decision under prior law).
Where necessary for the administration of justice if issue of insanity was raised after trial had commenced, court had discretion to declare a mistrial and commit a defendant to the State Hospital for observation. Cody v. State, 237 Ark. 15, 371 S.W.2d 143 (1963) (decision under prior law).
Jury Question.
Court did not deprive defendant of due process by failing to give him a preliminary hearing as to competency to stand trial, but where the court was aware that defendant was claiming mental incompetency to stand trial, it was error not to submit the issue to the jury. Bumgarner v. Lockhart, 361 F. Supp. 829 (E.D. Ark. 1973).
Cited: Murphy v. State, 255 Ark. 861, 504 S.W.2d 748 (1974); Rodgers v. State, 261 Ark. 293, 547 S.W.2d 419 (1977); Andrews v. State, 265 Ark. 390, 578 S.W.2d 585 (1979); Ark. State Hosp. v. Cleburne County, 271 Ark. 94, 607 S.W.2d 61 (1980); Coley v. Clinton, 635 F.2d 1364 (8th Cir. 1980); Arkansas State Hosp. v. Goslee, 274 Ark. 168, 623 S.W.2d 513 (1981); Dunn v. State, 291 Ark. 131, 722 S.W.2d 595 (1987); Randleman v. State, 310 Ark. 411, 837 S.W.2d 449 (1992).