Ark. Code Ann. § 5-1-103 (2026)
Applicability to offenses generally
- The provisions of the Arkansas Criminal Code govern a prosecution for any offense defined by the Arkansas Criminal Code and committed after January 1, 1976.
- Unless otherwise expressly provided, the provisions of the Arkansas Criminal Code govern a prosecution for any offense defined by a statute not part of the Arkansas Criminal Code and committed after January 1, 1976.
-
- The provisions of the Arkansas Criminal Code do not apply to the prosecution for any offense committed prior to January 1, 1976.
- An offense committed prior to January 1, 1976, shall be construed and punished in accordance with the law existing at the time of the commission of the offense.
-
- A defendant in a criminal prosecution for an offense committed prior to January 1, 1976, may elect to have the construction and application of any defense to the prosecution governed by the provisions of the Arkansas Criminal Code.
-
- An election under subdivision (d)(1) of this section shall be made by motion to the court that is to conduct the trial.
-
- The motion shall be timely filed but not later than ten (10) days before the date set for the trial of the case.
- However, the court for a good cause shown may entertain the motion at a later time.
- When all or part of a statute defining a criminal offense is amended or repealed, the statute or part of the statute that is amended or repealed remains in force for the purpose of authorizing the prosecution, conviction, and punishment of a person committing an offense under the statute or part of the statute prior to the effective date of the amending or repealing act.
History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 102; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-102.
Meaning of “Arkansas Criminal Code”. See note to § 5-1-101.
Case Notes
Applicability.
The application of subsection (d) is governed by § 5-1-111(c). Campbell v. State, 265 Ark. 77, 576 S.W.2d 938 (1979).
Since the Uniform Controlled Substances Act is silent as to procedures for enhanced sentencing in cases involving multiple offenses, this section applies. Prichard v. State, 300 Ark. 10, 775 S.W.2d 898 (1989).
Applicable Law.
Where an offense was committed before the effective date of the criminal code and the defendant did not file a motion electing to have his trial governed by the code, preexisting law was applicable to the defendant's defenses. Johnson v. State, 261 Ark. 714, 551 S.W.2d 203 (1977).
Where defendant was convicted of and sentenced after the passage of the Criminal Code but prior to its effective date, it would have been improper for the trial court to have followed the Criminal Code. Neal v. State, 270 Ark. 442, 605 S.W.2d 421 (1980).
Where crime was committed prior to the effective date of the criminal code, the courts would look to the statute applicable at the time the crime was committed to determine whether the passage of time prevented prosecution of the defendant. Iberg v. Langston, 286 Ark. 390, 691 S.W.2d 870 (1985).
Election.
Court was not required to proceed under the new code where a timely request for the application of the new criminal code as required by subsection (d) had not been made and since no good cause was shown as to why the motion should be entertained at a later time. Clark v. State, 260 Ark. 479, 541 S.W.2d 683 (1976).
Although a defendant in a prosecution for an offense committed prior to the effective date of the code may elect to have the construction and application of any defense to the prosecution governed by code provisions, the state has no election. Patrick v. State, 265 Ark. 334, 576 S.W.2d 191 (1979), overruled in part, Iberg v. Langston, 286 Ark. 390, 691 S.W.2d 870 (1985).
Repealed Statutes.
Defendant convicted on a plea of nolo contendere to sexual misconduct was not entitled to an arrest of judgment; although § 5-14-107, the statute defining sexual misconduct as a criminal offense, was repealed before defendant entered his plea of nolo contendere, the statute was in effect at the time he committed the offense. Holt v. State, 85 Ark. App. 151, 147 S.W.3d 699 (2004).
Cited: Long v. State, 260 Ark. 417, 542 S.W.2d 742 (1976); Butler v. State, 261 Ark. 369, 549 S.W.2d 65 (1977); Walker v. State, 263 Ark. 485, 565 S.W.2d 605 (1978); Thompson v. City of Little Rock, 264 Ark. 213, 570 S.W.2d 262 (1978); Cox v. Hutto, 476 F. Supp. 906 (E.D. Ark. 1979); Mabry v. Klimas, 448 U.S. 444, 100 S. Ct. 2755, 65 L. Ed. 2d 897 (1980); Klimas v. State, 271 Ark. 508, 609 S.W.2d 46 (1980); Dollar v. State, 287 Ark. 61, 697 S.W.2d 868 (1985); Elders v. State, 321 Ark. 60, 900 S.W.2d 170 (1995); Johnson v. State, 331 Ark. 421, 961 S.W.2d 764 (1998); Ark. Dep't of Corr. v. Williams, 2009 Ark. 523, 357 S.W.3d 867 (2009).