Ark. Code Ann. » Title 16 Chapter 86
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-86-111 (2020)

Allegation of insanity of convicted defendant

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. The procedure provided in this chapter shall also be followed, insofar as it is applicable, in any case in which the insanity of the convicted defendant is alleged as a ground for postponing or not carrying out execution of any sentence imposed as part of the judgment of conviction of the defendant.
  2. In such cases, a hearing shall be held in the manner provided by law, but the evidence provided for in this subchapter shall be given at the hearing.

History. Acts 1971, No. 433, ch. 6, § 9; A.S.A. 1947, § 43-1303; Acts 2001, No. 1551, § 11.

Amendments. The 2001 amendment substituted “provided in this subchapter” for “prescribed in §§ 16-86-102 — 16-86-106” in (a); and substituted “this subchapter” for “§§ 16-86-101 — 16-86-110 and 16-86-113” in (b).

Case Notes

Discretion of Court.

When insanity is claimed as a ground for postponement of sentence, the trial court is empowered to exercise its discretion. O'Rourke v. State, 295 Ark. 57, 746 S.W.2d 52 (1988).

Prior Examination.

It was not error to refuse to delay sentencing of the defendant because of defendant's alleged mental condition where, prior to trial, defendant had been examined at the state hospital and found to be without psychosis. Murphy v. State, 248 Ark. 794, 454 S.W.2d 302 (1970) (decision under prior law) O'Rourke v. State, 295 Ark. 57, 746 S.W.2d 52 (1988).

Cited: Ellingburg v. Lockhart, 397 F. Supp. 771 (E.D. Ark. 1975).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1988–1988 · leading case: O'rourke v. State, 746 S.W.2d 52 (Ark. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
O'rourke v. State, 746 S.W.2d 52 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 4× “Appellant argues that, under the mandatory language of Ark. Code Ann. § 16-86-111 (1987), the trial court was required to postpone sentencing and to commit the appellant for observation and testing upon the appellant’s counsel’s request for evaluation alleging that appellant was…”
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.