Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-126 (2026)

Verdict generally

✓ current as of May 2026

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

When the jury has agreed upon their verdict, they must be conducted into court by the officer having them in charge, their names called by the clerk, and, if they all appear, their foreman must declare their verdict.
The jury may render either a general or a special verdict.
A general verdict is either “guilty” or “not guilty”. If the verdict is guilty, the jury must affix the punishment if the amount thereof is not determined by law.
1. A special verdict is the finding of the facts only, leaving the law arising on the facts to the judgment of the court, with an ascertainment of the punishment in the event that the court pronounces a judgment of conviction on the verdict.
2. A special verdict must present the conclusions of fact as established by the evidence, and not the evidence of those facts. The facts must be presented so that the court has nothing to do but draw the conclusions of law upon them.
3. The special verdict must be reduced to writing by the jury and read to them in the presence of the court. It shall not be received by the court unless it pronounces affirmatively on the facts necessary to enable the court to give judgment.
1. Upon an indictment for an offense consisting of different degrees, the defendant may be found guilty of any degree not higher than that charged in the indictment and may be found guilty of any offense included in that charged in the indictment.
2. 1. The offenses named in each of the subdivisions of this section shall be deemed degrees of the same offense, in the meaning of subdivision (e)(1) of this section:
    1. All offenses of homicide;
    2. All injuries to the person by maiming, wounding, beating, and assaulting, whether malicious or from sudden passion, and whether attended or not with the intention to kill;
    3. All offenses of larceny;
    4. Arson and house-burning;
    5. Burglary and house-breaking; and
    6. An offense, and an attempt to commit the offense.
  2. Offenses punished capitally are of the highest degree, other felonies are of higher degree than misdemeanor, and those punished by imprisonment are of higher degree than those punished by fine alone.
  3. Where the punishment is the same in kind, the amount that may be inflicted fixes the degree.
3. Where there is a reasonable doubt of the degree of the offense which the defendant has committed, he or she shall be convicted only of the lower degree.
4. When the proof shows the defendant to be guilty of a higher degree of the offense than is charged in the indictment, the jury shall find him or her guilty of the degree charged in the indictment.
Upon an indictment against several, if the jury cannot agree as to all, they may render a verdict as to those concerning whom they do agree, and the case as to the others may be tried by another jury.
When there is a reasonable doubt of the defendant's guilt upon the testimony in the whole case, he or she is entitled to an acquittal.

History. Crim. Code, §§ 237, 238, 253-260, 262, 263; C. & M. Dig., §§ 3183, 3184, 3201-3203, 3207-3211, 3213, 3214; Pope's Dig., §§ 4019, 4020, 4037-4039, 4043-4047, 4049, 4050; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 43-2143 — 43-2151, 43-2157 — 43-2159.

Cross References. Conduct constituting more than one offense, § 5-1-110.

Reasonable doubt, § 5-1-111.

Case Notes

Appeal.

Verdict will not be disturbed on appeal if there is substantial evidence to support it. Gilchrist v. State, 100 Ark. 330, 140 S.W. 260 (1911).

Even constitutional issues will not be considered when raised on appeal for the first time, and where defendant alleged that he was convicted of a greater offense than that with which he was charged, but had failed to object to the jury instructions or the form of the verdict during the trial, the issue was not preserved, and defendant suffered no real prejudice. Moore v. State, 303 Ark. 514, 798 S.W.2d 87 (1990).

Degrees of Offenses.

If the indictment charges an offense of different grades and the jury returns a general verdict of “guilty as charged” without finding the degree, it will be presumed that the jury found in favor of the higher grade of the offense charged. Curtis v. State, 26 Ark. 439 (1871).

In reaching verdict, a doubt as to the degree of the crime, upon the facts of the case, should be resolved in favor of the accused. Harris v. State, 36 Ark. 127 (1880); Price v. State, 114 Ark. 398, 170 S.W. 235 (1914); Adams v. State, 160 Ark. 405, 254 S.W. 832 (1923); Arnold v. State, 179 Ark. 1066, 20 S.W.2d 189 (1929).

Defendant cannot be convicted of an offense higher than that charged. Robbins v. State, 219 Ark. 376, 242 S.W.2d 640 (1951); Switzer v. Golden, 224 Ark. 543, 274 S.W.2d 769 (1955).

—Lesser Included Offenses.

Upon an indictment for a felony, the accused may be convicted of a misdemeanor, where both offenses belong to the same generic class, where the commission of the higher may involve the commission of the lower offense, and where the indictment for the higher offense contains all the necessary substantive allegations to let in proof of the misdemeanor. Cameron v. State, 13 Ark. 712 (1853); Childs v. State, 15 Ark. 204 (1854); Sweeden v. State, 19 Ark. 205 (1857); Guest v. State, 19 Ark. 405 (1858); State v. Cryer, 20 Ark. 64 (1859); Bryant v. State, 41 Ark. 359, 1883 Ark. LEXIS 184 (1883).

The finding of a verdict of manslaughter upon an indictment for murder is equivalent to an acquittal of the charge of murder. McPherson v. State, 29 Ark. 225 (1874).

If a verdict of “guilty of manslaughter” is returned upon a murder indictment, it will be presumed that voluntary manslaughter was intended. Fagg v. State, 50 Ark. 506, 8 S.W. 829 (1888).

An indictment for rape will sustain a conviction for carnal abuse. Henson v. State, 76 Ark. 267, 88 S.W. 965 (1905).

An indictment for assault with intent to kill will not sustain a conviction for assault and battery. Jones v. State, 100 Ark. 195, 139 S.W. 1126 (1911).

An indictment for rape will sustain a conviction for an assault with intent to commit rape. Paxton v. State, 108 Ark. 316, 157 S.W. 396 (1913).

When one is indicted for murder in the first degree, he may be convicted of manslaughter. Harris v. State, 170 Ark. 1073, 282 S.W. 680 (1926).

When on trial for robbery, if defendant is convicted of assault with intent to rob, he is properly convicted. Hight v. State, 172 Ark. 240, 288 S.W. 384 (1926).

Manslaughter is one of the degrees of murder. Ellis v. State, 234 Ark. 1072, 356 S.W.2d 426 (1962).

—Subsequent Prosecution.

Conviction of a misdemeanor, where the penalty is only a fine, will not bar an indictment for a felony for the same offense. State v. Nichols, 38 Ark. 550 (1882).

An acquittal of the charge will bar prosecution for offenses which are essential ingredients of that charge. Fox v. State, 50 Ark. 528, 8 S.W. 836 (1888).

A person convicted of a misdemeanor which placed him in jeopardy of liberty may not be indicted for a felony for the same offense. State v. Smith, 53 Ark. 24, 13 S.W. 391 (1890).

The conviction of any degree of rape would bar successive prosecution for any other degree of rape. State v. Lamb, 251 Ark. 999, 476 S.W.2d 7 (1972).

Form and Presentment.

Where several are jointly indicted and tried together, the verdict and judgment against them should be several; that is, fix the fine or punishment to be paid or suffered by each. Straughan v. State, 16 Ark. 37 (1855).

It is not necessary that the verdict should be written upon the indictment, though it is usual to do so. Atkins v. State, 16 Ark. 568 (1855).

The verdict is of no validity until delivered by the jury in court, and the clerk cannot receive it in the recess of the court without the direction of the court or consent of parties. State v. Mills, 19 Ark. 476 (1858).

The verdict need not be in writing, but may be announced orally by the foreman of the jury and entered by the clerk upon the record, but if it is in writing and responsive to the issue, it is sufficient without the formula “in manner and form as charged in the indictment.” Dixon v. State, 29 Ark. 165, 1874 Ark. LEXIS 22 (1874).

Verdict on an indictment containing two counts is sufficient if it finds the defendant guilty of each offense and assesses his punishment therefor separately, without alleging that the defendant was guilty as charged in the indictment or as charged in either count. Lawrence v. State, 71 Ark. 82, 71 S.W. 263 (1902).

Verdict finding the accused guilty as charged in the indictment and fixing his “penalty” at one year in the penitentiary was not invalid, as the word “punishment” was evidently intended. Russell v. State, 97 Ark. 92, 133 S.W. 188 (1910).

The jury may amend its verdict as to form. Hamer v. State, 104 Ark. 606, 150 S.W. 142 (1912).

Verdict may be received on Sunday. Eyer v. State, 112 Ark. 37, 164 S.W. 756 (1914).

Verdict form which failed to show maximum and minimum punishments was proper inasmuch as there is no requirement that a form of verdict given a jury show the sentencing alternatives and it is the responsibility of the party desiring a particular form of verdict to prepare it and request the court to submit it. Rowland v. State, 263 Ark. 77, 562 S.W.2d 590 (1978).

There is no requirement that a verdict form be submitted to the jury by the trial judge, although it is the better practice to do so. Rowland v. State, 263 Ark. 77, 562 S.W.2d 590 (1978).

General Verdict.

A general verdict of guilty on an indictment containing several counts is good, if either of the counts are good and are sustained by evidence. Brown v. State, 10 Ark. 607, 1850 Ark. LEXIS 140 (1850); Howard v. State, 34 Ark. 433, 1879 Ark. LEXIS 64 (1879); Watkins v. State, 37 Ark. 370, 1881 Ark. LEXIS 106 (1881), overruled, Crook v. State, 59 Ark. 326, 27 S.W. 229 (Ark. 1894); Cooper v. State, 37 Ark. 412 (1881).

Where there are two counts substantially the same, a general verdict is a finding upon both counts and is sufficient. Levells v. State, 32 Ark. 585 (1877).

Where defendant was convicted under an indictment containing two counts, and a general verdict of guilty, without specifying the offense, was received without objection, he could not subsequently object to the form of the verdict if the evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction of either offense. Cargill v. State, 76 Ark. 550, 90 S.W. 618 (1905).

A general verdict is a conviction of everything well charged. Blackshare v. State, 94 Ark. 548, 128 S.W. 549 (1910).

Reasonable Doubt.

Subsection (g) applies to misdemeanors as well as to felonies. State v. King, 20 Ark. 166 (1859).

The rule that the guilt of the accused must be established to the exclusion of every other hypothesis only applies in cases depending upon circumstantial evidence. Cohen v. State, 32 Ark. 226 (1877).

Reconsideration.

Evidence sufficient to show there was not such absolute discharge of the jury as prevented the court from recalling it for the purpose of correcting the verdict. Levells v. State, 32 Ark. 585 (1877).

The court may refuse a verdict and direct the jury to reconsider, and when they do reconsider and alter the verdict, the second verdict is the verdict of the jury. McRae v. State, 49 Ark. 195, 4 S.W. 758 (1887).

Sentence Fixed by Jury.

Under subsection (c) of this section and § 5-4-103, the defendant was entitled to have a jury fix his sentence for his conviction of driving while intoxicated, and his proffered jury instruction to this effect should have been given. Tharp v. State, 294 Ark. 615, 745 S.W.2d 612 (1988).

Setting Aside.

The court may set aside a verdict of acquittal of an offense punishable by fine only. Fenix v. State, 90 Ark. 589, 120 S.W. 388 (1909).

Cited: Puckett v. State, 194 Ark. 449, 108 S.W.2d 468 (1937); Clayton v. State, 247 Ark. 643, 447 S.W.2d 319 (1969); Brewer v. State, 251 Ark. 7, 470 S.W.2d 581 (1971); Lowe v. State, 264 Ark. 205, 570 S.W.2d 253 (1978); Ashlock v. State, 64 Ark. App. 253, 983 S.W.2d 448 (1998); Basham v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 384 (2011).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 7 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2023 · leading case: Fincham v. State, 427 S.W.3d 643 (Ark. 2013).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Fincham v. State, 427 S.W.3d 643 (Ark. 2013). · cites it 4× “Ark.Code Ann. § 16-89-126(e)(3) (Repl.2005) (“Where there is a reasonable doubt of the degree of the offense which the defendant has committed, he or she shall be convicted only of the lower degree.”

People v. Fontenot, 447 P.3d 252 (Cal. 2019). “Castro-Trevino , supra , 464 F.3d at pp. 541-542.”

John Mitchell v. State of Arkansas, 2023 Ark. App. 119 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023). · cites it 6× “” 9 signed verdict forms of acquittal were confirmed in open court and entered of record. The formality and finality of the jury’s verdicts of acquittal on these two murder offenses could not be clearer, see Ark.”

Moore v. State, 798 S.W.2d 87 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 2× “2d 640 (1951); Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-126 (e)(l) (1987).”

Tharp v. State, 745 S.W.2d 612 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 2× “1977) [now codified with minor stylistic changes at Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-126 (c) (1987)], which provides, “A general verdict is either ‘guilty,’ or ‘not guilty;’ if guilty, the jury affixing the punishment, if the amount thereof is not determined by law.”

Ashlock v. State, 983 S.W.2d 448 (Ark. Ct. App. 1998). “Arkansas Code Annotated § 16-89-126(a) (1987) states: When the jury has agreed upon their verdict, they must be conducted into court by the officer having them in charge, their names called by the clerk, and, if they appear, their foreman must declare their verdict.”

Steven James Cash v. State of Arkansas, 2020 Ark. App. 556 (Ark. Ct. App. 2020). · cites it 2× “art. 2, § 10 (1874) (guaranteeing criminal defendants the fundamental right to be “informed of the nature and cause of the accusation”).”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-126(a) — 2 cases

John Mitchell v. State of Arkansas, 2023 Ark. App. 119 (Ark. Ct. App. 2023). “” 9 signed verdict forms of acquittal were confirmed in open court and entered of record. The formality and finality of the jury’s verdicts of acquittal on these two murder offenses could not be clearer, see Ark.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-126(e)(3) — 1 case

Fincham v. State, 427 S.W.3d 643 (Ark. 2013). “Ark.Code Ann. § 16-89-126(e)(3) (Repl.2005) (“Where there is a reasonable doubt of the degree of the offense which the defendant has committed, he or she shall be convicted only of the lower degree.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-126(g) — 1 case

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.