Ark. Code Ann. § 16-88-108 (2026)

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

This section is not violative of the Constitution as to crimes committed on the boundary line between two counties or when there is uncertainty as to the location of the boundary. State v. Rhoda, 23 Ark. 156 (1861); Jones v. State, 54 Ark. 371, 15 S.W. 1026, 1891 Ark. LEXIS 61 (1891).

Subsection (b) of this section is a valid exercise of legislative power. Contra Cox v. State, 68 Ark. 462, 60 S.W. 27 (1900)Questioned byBottom v. State, 155 Ark. 113, 244 S.W. 334 (Ark. 1922); Bottom v. State, 155 Ark. 113, 244 S.W. 334 (Ark. 1922).

Construction.

Subsection (c) of this section is to be liberally construed. Hill v. State, 253 Ark. 512, 487 S.W.2d 624 (1972).

Purpose.

Subsection (c) of this section was remedial, intended to prevent miscarriages of justice by extending the lines of jurisdiction beyond the limits prescribed by the common law. Hill v. State, 253 Ark. 512, 487 S.W.2d 624 (1972).

Burden of Proof.

Before the state is called upon to offer any evidence of jurisdiction, there must be positive evidence that the offense occurred outside the jurisdiction of the court. Nicholson v. State, 319 Ark. 566, 892 S.W.2d 507 (1995).

Conspiracy.

Proper venue for a conspiracy prosecution is any county where an overt act in furtherance of the conspiracy is alleged to have occurred. Lee v. State, 27 Ark. App. 198, 770 S.W.2d 148 (1989), cert. denied, Lee v. Arkansas, 493 U.S. 847, 110 S. Ct. 142 (1989).

Crime on Boundary.

Instruction that, if an offense is committed upon the boundary of two counties or if it is uncertain where the boundary is, a conviction may be had in either county is erroneous where there is no proof that the offense was committed upon the boundary of the two counties or that there is uncertainty about the location of the boundary. Jones v. State, 54 Ark. 371, 15 S.W. 1026, 1891 Ark. LEXIS 61 (1891).

Crime committed on a boat fastened to the bank of a stream on the boundary line is within the jurisdiction of either county. Bottom v. State, 155 Ark. 113, 244 S.W. 334 (Ark. 1922).

Joinder of Charges.

Where the kidnapping occurred in Washington County, continued into Madison County, and culminated with a rape in Madison County, both counties had jurisdiction and venue over both the kidnapping and rape charges, as they arose from the same continuing course of conduct. Thus, ARCrP 21.3 required the judge to grant the defense motion to join the charges in one trial, and when joinder was denied, the latter conviction had to be reversed and the charge dismissed. Cozzaglio v. State, 289 Ark. 33, 709 S.W.2d 70 (1986).

Where defendant did not request joinder of separate charges relating to separate crimes committed in one continuous episode in different counties, joinder was not required. Wilson v. State, 298 Ark. 608, 770 S.W.2d 123 (1989).

Jurisdiction.

While defendant worked for the sheriff's department, she was authorized to use the department's credit card only for county purchases; her use of the card for personal purchases was sufficient to support her conviction for fraudulently using a credit card in violation of § 5-37-207(a)(4). Because it was undisputed that the purchases took place in Pulaski County, Arkansas, the Pulaski County Circuit Court had jurisdiction over the case in accordance with subsection (c) of this section. Baker v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 788 (2009).

Location of Property.

In prosecution for disposing of property subject to a lien, circuit court in county in which case was heard had jurisdiction under this section, it appearing that the property in question, cattle, was situated in that county, notwithstanding that the acts with reference to disposal of the cattle took place in another county. Hill v. State, 253 Ark. 512, 487 S.W.2d 624 (1972).

Offenses in More Than One County.

Where the offense of kidnapping occurred in one county and culminated in the aggravated robbery of the victim in another county, the first county had jurisdiction to try the defendant for both kidnapping and robbery. Ellis v. State, 291 Ark. 72, 722 S.W.2d 575 (1987).

Where robbery plan was hatched in one county and the disguise and weapon were obtained there, and the murder and robbery occurred in a second county, but the body was returned to the first, jurisdiction was in either county, and venue was thus properly laid in the first county. Thrash v. State, 291 Ark. 575, 726 S.W.2d 283 (1987).

Defendant's double jeopardy argument rejected where defendant's convictions for incest in one county were not for the same offense committed in another county, and where the offenses in the former county were not based on the same conduct for which he was convicted in the latter county. Fletcher v. State, 53 Ark. App. 135, 920 S.W.2d 42 (1996).

The county in which a chase began had jurisdiction over a charge of fleeing, notwithstanding the defendant's contention that he was actually chasing the police while in that county and that he did not have an intent to flee until the chase moved to another county. Barr v. State, 336 Ark. 220, 984 S.W.2d 792 (1999).

Jurisdiction in a prosecution for Medicaid fraud was properly found to be in Pulaski County, notwithstanding that the defendant's dental practice was in Pine Bluff and that his billings occurred there, since his Medicaid billings were submitted to a state agency in Little Rock for payment and his claims were denied or authorized there. Blackwell v. State, 338 Ark. 671, 1 S.W.3d 399 (1999).

In a prosecution for hindering apprehension or prosecution, jurisdiction was proper either in the county in which the defendant volunteered false information to the police with regard to a murder under investigation or in the county in which the murder occurred and in which the investigation was ongoing. State v. Osborn, 345 Ark. 196, 45 S.W.3d 373 (2001).

Circuit Court in Jefferson County had jurisdiction to enter a judgment convicting defendant of a rape that occurred in Arkansas County where the offense was a continuing episode that began with the kidnapping of the female victim by two men in Jefferson County and ended with the gang rape of the victim in Arkansas County by defendant and several accomplices; the fact that defendant was acquitted of the offense that occurred in Jefferson County did not deprive the circuit court of jurisdiction. Cloird v. State, 352 Ark. 190, 99 S.W.3d 419 (2003).

Pursuant to subsection (c) of thjis section, a trial court had jurisdiction over defendant's trial for theft by receiving because the evidence demonstrated that, at the very least, the disposal of the stolen property occurred in Arkansas. Johnson v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 615 (2012).

Ark. R. Crim. P. 21.3 did not preclude a prosecution for second-degree sexual assault because it did not occur in the same jurisdiction and venue as other offenses; the sexual assault in Sebastian County did not arise from the same criminal episode as similar offenses charged in Crawford County, which allegedly occurred within a span of four years. Rape was not a continuing offense, this section did not apply because the charged offenses of sexual assault was alleged to have been committed entirely within Sebastian County, and the offenses were not related under Rule 21.3. Bean v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 643 (2012).

Venue.

Pursuant to subsection (c), where some of the acts requisite to the murder occurred within the county, venue was properly laid in the county. Patterson v. State, 306 Ark. 385, 815 S.W.2d 377 (1991).

Cited: Williams v. Turner, 255 Ark. 907, 503 S.W.2d 901 (1974); Hickerson v. State, 282 Ark. 217, 667 S.W.2d 654 (1984); Shaw v. State, 299 Ark. 474, 773 S.W.2d 827 (1989); Pilcher v. State, 303 Ark. 335, 796 S.W.2d 845 (1990).