Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 16-98-301 (2026)

Short title and definitions

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. This subchapter shall be known as the “Arkansas Drug Court Act”.
  2. As used in this subchapter:
    1. “Evidence-based practices” means supervision, policies, procedures, and practices proven through research to reduce recidivism;
    2. “Validated risk-needs assessment” means a determination of a person's risk to reoffend and the needs that, when addressed, reduce the risk to reoffend through the use of an actuarial assessment tool that assesses the dynamic and static factors that drive criminal behavior; and
    3. “Violent felony offense” means an offense that is punishable by a term of imprisonment exceeding one (1) year, and during the course of the offense:
      1. The person carried, possessed, or used a firearm or other dangerous weapon and the use of deadly force was used against another person; or
      2. Death or serious physical injury was inflicted upon another person, regardless of whether death or serious physical injury was an element of the crime for which the person was convicted.

History. Acts 2003, No. 1266, § 1; 2011, No. 570, § 111; 2015, No. 895, § 31.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 2011, No. 570, § 1, provided: “The intent of this act is to implement comprehensive measures designed to reduce recidivism, hold offenders accountable, and contain correction costs.”

Acts 2015, No. 895, § 1, provided: “Legislative intent. It is the intent of the General Assembly to implement wide-ranging reforms to the criminal justice system in order to address prison overcrowding, promote seamless reentry into society, reduce medical costs incurred by the state and local governments, aid law enforcement agencies in fighting crime and keeping the peace, and to enhance public safety.”

Amendments. The 2011 amendment added “and definitions” in the section heading; and added the (a) designation and (b).

The 2015 amendment inserted “supervision, policies, procedures, and” in (b)(1).

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev.

Survey of Legislation, 2003 Arkansas General Assembly, Practice, Procedure, and Courts, Drug Intervention Program, 26 U. Ark. Little Rock L. Rev. 448.

Case Notes

Due Process.

Circuit court's order denying a petition for postconviction relief was reversed where drug-court participants were to be afforded the same protections as a probationer on revocation, the circuit court failed to hold a hearing prior to petitioner's expulsion from the drug-court program, and that failure amounted to a due-process violation. Neal v. State, 2016 Ark. 287, 497 S.W.3d 666 (2016).

Probation Revocation.

Trial court lacked authority, pursuant to § 5-4-303(d)(2), to lengthen defendant's probationary period where defendant had made progress in the drug-court program under the Drug Court Act (§ 16-98-301 et seq.), because the trial court did not hold a revocation hearing pursuant to former § 5-4-310 (see now § 16-93-307). Cross v. State, 2009 Ark. 597, 357 S.W.3d 895 (2009).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 6 cases, 2007–2018 · leading case: Neal v. State, 2016 Ark. 287 (Ark. 2016).
Neal v. State, 2016 Ark. 287 (Ark. 2016). · cites it 4× “See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-98-301 et seq. 2 The majority also contends, “the decision to expel Neal from the drug-court program had already been made, outside of Neal’s presence.”
Tornavacca v. State, 408 S.W.3d 727 (Ark. 2012). · cites it 2× “See Ark.Code Ann. § 16-98-301 to 309 (Repl.2006 & Supp.”
Anglin v. State, 249 S.W.3d 836 (Ark. Ct. App. 2007). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 16-98-301 to -304 (Repl.”
King v. State, 549 S.W.3d 407 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 2× “See Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-98-301 et seq. (Repl.”
Turley v. State, 429 S.W.3d 293 (Ark. Ct. App. 2013). “2006) is the statute directly involved, and it provides in pertinent part: (a)(3) Nothing in this subsection shall require or compel any court of this state to establish first offender procedures as provided in this section and §§ 16-93-301 and 16-93-302, nor shall any defendant…”
In re Admin. Plans Cir. & Dist. Cts, 2013 Ark. 487 (Ark. 2013). · cites it 2× “, Drug Courts, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 16-98-301 et seq., Swift Courts, Ark.”
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.