Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-314 (2026)

Acquittal — Examination of defendant — Hearing

✓ current as of May 2026

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

When a defendant is acquitted due to the defendant's lack of criminal responsibility, a circuit court is required to determine, and to include the determination in the order of acquittal, one (1) of the following:
1. The offense involved bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another person or involved a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another person, and that the defendant remains affected by mental disease or defect;
2. The offense involved bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another person or involved a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another person, and that the defendant is no longer affected by mental disease or defect;
3. The offense did not involve bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another person nor did it involve substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another person, and that the defendant remains affected by mental disease or defect; or
4. The offense did not involve bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another person nor did it involve a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another person, and that the defendant is no longer affected by mental disease or defect.
1. If the circuit court enters a determination based on subdivision (a)(1) or subdivision (a)(3) of this section, the circuit court shall order the defendant committed to the custody of the Department of Human Services for an examination by a psychiatrist or a licensed psychologist.
2. Upon filing of an order of commitment under subdivision (b)(1) of this section with a circuit clerk, the circuit clerk shall submit a copy of the order to the Arkansas Crime Information Center.
If the circuit court enters a determination based on subdivision (a)(2) or subdivision (a)(4) of this section, the circuit court shall immediately discharge the defendant.
1. 1. The department shall file the psychiatric or psychological report with the probate clerk of the circuit court having venue within thirty (30) days following receipt of an order of acquittal.
  2. If before thirty (30) days the department makes application to the circuit court for an extension of time to file the psychiatric or psychological report and the circuit court finds there is good cause for the delay, the circuit court may order that additional time be allowed for the department to file the psychiatric or psychological report.
  3. A hearing shall be conducted by the circuit court and shall take place not later than ten (10) days following the filing of the psychiatric or psychological report with the circuit court.
2. If the psychiatric or psychological report is not filed within thirty (30) days following the department's receipt of an order of acquittal or within such additional time as authorized by the circuit court, the circuit court may grant a petition for a writ of habeas corpus ordering the release of the defendant under terms and conditions that are reasonable and just for the defendant and societal concerns about the safety of persons and property of others.
1. A person found not guilty of an offense involving bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another person or involving a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another person due to the person's lack of criminal responsibility has the burden of proving by clear and convincing evidence that his or her release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another person due to a present mental disease or defect.
2. With respect to any other offense, the person has the burden of proof by a preponderance of the evidence.
1. A person acquitted whose mental condition is the subject of a hearing has a right to counsel.
2. 1. If it appears to the circuit court that the person acquitted is in need of counsel, an attorney shall be appointed immediately upon filing of the original petition.
  2. 1. When an attorney is appointed by the circuit court, the circuit court shall determine the amount of the fee to be paid the attorney appointed by the circuit court and issue an order of payment.
    2. The amount of the fee allowed shall be based upon the time and effort of the attorney in the investigation, preparation, and representation of the client at the court hearings.
1. The quorum court of each county shall appropriate funds for the purpose of payment of the attorney's fees provided for by subsection (f) of this section.
2. Upon presentment of a claim accompanied by an order of the circuit court fixing the fee, the claim shall be approved by the county court and paid in the same manner as other claims against the county are paid.
A hearing conducted pursuant to subsection (d) of this section may be held at the Arkansas State Hospital or a designated receiving facility or program where the person acquitted is detained.
When conducting any hearing set out in this section, the circuit judge may conduct the hearing within any county of his or her judicial district.
1. 1. It is the duty of the prosecuting attorney's office in the county where the petition is filed to represent the State of Arkansas at any hearing held pursuant to this section except a hearing pending at the Arkansas State Hospital in Pulaski County.
  2. A prosecuting attorney may contract with another attorney to provide services under subdivision (j)(1)(A) of this section.
2. The office of the Prosecutor Coordinator shall appear for and on behalf of the State of Arkansas at the Arkansas State Hospital in Little Rock.
3. Representation under this subsection is a part of the official duties of a prosecuting attorney or the office of the Prosecutor Coordinator and the prosecuting attorney or the office of the Prosecutor Coordinator is immune from civil liability in the performance of this official duty.

History. Acts 1989, No. 645, § 3; 1989, No. 821, § 1; 1989, No. 911, § 3; 1995, No. 609, § 1; 2003, No. 1185, § 3; 2005, No. 1446, § 1; 2007, No. 463, § 2; 2007, No. 568, § 3; 2017, No. 472, §§ 12, 13.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Identical Acts 1989, Nos. 645 and 911, § 3, provided, in part, that “the provisions of this section shall be in lieu of Arkansas Code § 5-2-314 and shall apply to persons who are acquitted by reason of mental disease or defect after the effective date of this act.” Former § 5-2-314 derived from the following sources: Acts 1975, No. 280, § 612; 1983, No. 917, §§ 1, 3; A.S.A. 1947, §§ 41-612, 41-612.2. It was also amended by Acts 1989, No. 821, § 1; however, the enactment by identical Act Nos. 645 and 911 is deemed to be controlling.

Amendments. The 2017 amendment substituted “due to the defendant's lack of criminal responsibility” for “on the ground of mental disease or defect” in the introductory language of (a); and, in (e)(1), substituted “A person found not guilty” for “A person found not guilty on the ground of mental disease or defect” and inserted “due to the person's lack of criminal responsibility”.

Cross References. Jurisdiction of circuit courts over involuntary commitments, § 20-47-205.

Research References

ALR.

Extended Commitment of One Committed to Institution as Consequence of Acquittal of Crime on Ground of Insanity. 52 A.L.R.6th 567.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Legislation of the 1983 General Assembly, Criminal Law, 6 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 613.

Case Notes

Applicability.

The court correctly proceeded under this section and § 5-2-315 instead of under the civil commitment statutes where defendant was suffering from borderline intellectual functioning. Barnett v. State, 328 Ark. 246, 942 S.W.2d 860 (1997).

Application for Release.

Patients of the Arkansas State Hospital who were committed for a sufficient length of time under procedures for commitment of persons charged with crime clearly had a right, under the Code, to present an application for release to the committing trial court, or to contest a report by the director of the State Hospital which stated that the patient should remain hospitalized. Coley v. Clinton, 479 F. Supp. 1036 (E.D. Ark. 1979) (decision under prior law).

Commitment Constitutional.

Confinement based on a criminal commitment pursuant to this section and § 5-2-315 does not violate Ark. Const., Art. 2, § 8 or the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution since the commitment must be based on a finding that the defendant is a danger to himself and other persons or property and is not based solely on his incompetency to stand trial. Schock v. Thomas, 274 Ark. 493, 625 S.W.2d 521 (1981) (decision under prior law).

When an accused is sufficiently linked with conduct which sustains a finding of dangerousness, his commitment by a circuit court in connection with criminal charges is based on a rational distinction from the commitment procedures followed in civil cases; accordingly, the fact that a criminal defendant committed under this section is subjected to a more lenient commitment standard, is subject to disparity in custodial care and is held to a more stringent release standard than that applied to patients committed under the civil commitment statutes, does not deny him equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. Schock v. Thomas, 274 Ark. 493, 625 S.W.2d 521 (1981) (decision under prior law).

Denial of Release.

Appellant did not meet his burden under subdivision (e)(1) of this section. Although appellant had not been physically aggressive while at the hospital, he had verbally threatened others and the doctor opined that appellant continued to be a high risk of danger to himself and others; thus, the circuit court did not clearly err by refusing to release appellant from the custody of the Department of Human Services. Beare v. Ark. Dep't of Human Servs. (In re Beare), 2018 Ark. App. 598 (2018).

Instructions.

A trial court is not required to give a requested instruction to the jury which is taken from the language of this section and explains to the jury that even after a verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity the court would still have alternative dispositions of the defendant. Curry v. State, 271 Ark. 913, 611 S.W.2d 745 (1981); Dean v. State, 272 Ark. 448, 615 S.W.2d 354 (1981); Couch v. State, 274 Ark. 29, 621 S.W.2d 694 (1981) (preceding decisions under prior law).

The jury is not to be told the options available to the court when a defendant is found not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect and it is equally impermissible to comment on one of the alternatives, as it would be to comment on all of them. Love v. State, 281 Ark. 379, 664 S.W.2d 457 (1984); Schock v. Thomas, 274 Ark. 493, 625 S.W.2d 521 (1981) (decision under prior law); Robertson v. State, 304 Ark. 332, 802 S.W.2d 920 (1991).

Trial judge was correct in refusing proffered jury instruction concerning the consequences which result when a defendant is acquitted on the grounds of mental disease or defect. Hubbard v. State, 306 Ark. 153, 812 S.W.2d 107 (1991).

Jurisdiction.

The circuit court has jurisdiction at the initial stage to make a valid commitment to the state hospital of persons found not guilty by reason of insanity or found to be incapable of assisting in their defense, but subsequent proceedings must be under the jurisdiction of probate courts. Schock v. Thomas, 274 Ark. 493, 625 S.W.2d 521 (1981) (decision under prior law).

Where it had been more than two years since the trial court dismissed the murder charge against the petitioner because of her mental disease and committed her to the State Hospital pursuant to this section, the petition was entitled to a termination of her criminal commitment, with any continued commitment to be by way of civil commitment. Mannix v. State, 273 Ark. 492, 621 S.W.2d 222 (1981) (decision under prior law).

Jurisdiction of the probate court in hearings where petitioner has the burden of proving that his release would not create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another due to a present mental disease or defect, was established by the automatic order of commitment entered by the circuit court. Hattison v. State, 324 Ark. 317, 920 S.W.2d 849 (1996).

While a commitment cannot be indefinite, there is no reason to deprive the probate court of jurisdiction due to a late psychiatric report. Hattison v. State, 324 Ark. 317, 920 S.W.2d 849 (1996).

A 6-month delay in the filing of an Act 911 (Acts 1989, No. 991) report did not cause the probate court to lose jurisdiction. Daniels v. State, 333 Ark. 620, 970 S.W.2d 278 (1998).

Although acquitee asserted that, because the judgment of acquittal was entered July 1, 2003, and the DHS director's report was not filed until October 2, 2003, there was no compliance with the requirement that a report had to be filed within 30 days of acquittal, the appellate court held that, despite the untimeliness of the DHS report, it did not compromise the trial court's authority to impose continued DHS commitment. Gibson v. State, 89 Ark. App. 184, 201 S.W.3d 422 (2005).

Where the judgment of acquittal was entered July 1, 2003, and the DHS Director's report was not filed until October 2, 2003, there was no compliance with the requirement that a report be filed within thirty days of acquittal; however, despite the untimeliness of the DHS report, it did not compromise the trial court's authority to impose continued DHS commitment. Gibson v. State, 89 Ark. App. 184, 201 S.W.3d 422 (2005).

Cited: Drone v. State, 303 Ark. 607, 798 S.W.2d 434 (1990); Sanders v. State, 304 Ark. 109, 798 S.W.2d 926 (1990); Mauppin v. State, 309 Ark. 235, 831 S.W.2d 104 (1992).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 21 cases (2 in the last 5 years), 1990–2022 · leading case: Hattison v. State, 920 S.W.2d 849 (Ark. 1996).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Hattison v. State, 920 S.W.2d 849 (Ark. 1996). · cites it 22× “Section 20-47-210 sets out the necessary steps for immediate confinement of a person suffering from a mental disease or defect to the extent that he or she is a danger to himself or others.”

Davasher v. State, 823 S.W.2d 863 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 6× “I would reverse with instructions to the circuit court to commence commitment proceedings under Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-314 (Supp. 1991). NOTES [1] The appellant had been a patient before at the state hospital in August 1986 for amphetamineinduced delirium and was currently in…”

State v. Owens, 260 S.W.3d 288 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 7× “2006), in effect at the time of the court’s order, provided in pertinent part: (a)(1) any person conditionally released pursuant to § 5-2-314 or § 5-2-315 may apply to the court ordering the conditional release for discharge from or modification of the order granting conditional…”

Mauppin v. State, 831 S.W.2d 104 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 4× “When this is done, the circuit court may commit the accused to an appropriate institution for up to thirty days.”

George v. State, 92 S.W.3d 692 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 26× “Pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-314 (Repl.1997), the State Hospital filed a report with the court recommending that appellant be released without conditions.”

Hubbard v. State, 812 S.W.2d 107 (Ark. 1991). · cites it 2× “The trial court denied appellant’s proposed instruction which was based on Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-314 (1987). The proffered instruction stated that if appellant were acquitted on the ground of mental disease or defect, he would be committed to the custody of the Director of the…”

Daniels v. State, 970 S.W.2d 278 (Ark. 1998). · cites it 9× “The sole issue in this appeal is whether the probate court lacked jurisdiction in this matter due to the fact that appellant Mary Ann Daniels was not provided a timely evaluation and psychiatric report by the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) and a…”

Marcyniuk v. State, 2014 Ark. 268 (Ark. 2014). · cites it 4× “2013), provides that, when the affirmative defense of not guilty by reason of mental disease or defect is presented to the jury, the jury shall be instructed in accordance with Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-2-314 (Repl. 2013), which outlines the disposition process for…”

State v. Hulum, 78 S.W.3d 111 (Ark. 2002). “Act 248 of 2001 provides in relevant part: (2) When the affirmative defense of mental disease or defect is presented to a jury, the jury, prior to deliberations, shall be instructed regarding the disposition of a defendant acquitted on the grounds of mental disease or defect…”

Drone v. State, 798 S.W.2d 434 (Ark. 1990). · cites it 2× “Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-314 (Supp. 1989) provides in part: (a)(1) When a defendant is acquitted on the ground of mental disease or defect, the circuit court shall determine whether the offense involved bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another or…”

K.M. v. State, 983 S.W.2d 93 (Ark. 1998). · cites it 2× “]” When read in conjunction with these two statutes, it appears that the General Assembly intended for section 5-2-312 to apply only to proceedings in the circuit court.”

Gibson v. State, 201 S.W.3d 422 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 14× “• Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-314 (a)(l), the Court hereby makes the finding that the offense involved bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another, or involved substantial risk of such injury or damage, and that the Defendant remains…”

Show all 21 citing cases →

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-314(a)(1) — 3 cases

George v. State, 92 S.W.3d 692 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). “Pursuant to Ark.Code Ann. § 5-2-314 (Repl.1997), the State Hospital filed a report with the court recommending that appellant be released without conditions.”

Cincoski v. Helder (W.D. Ark. 2022).

Cincoski v. Lindsay (W.D. Ark. 2022).

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-314(b) — 2 cases

Hattison v. State, 920 S.W.2d 849 (Ark. 1996). “Section 20-47-210 sets out the necessary steps for immediate confinement of a person suffering from a mental disease or defect to the extent that he or she is a danger to himself or others.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-314(c) — 1 case

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-314(d) — 1 case

Daniels v. State, 970 S.W.2d 278 (Ark. 1998). “The sole issue in this appeal is whether the probate court lacked jurisdiction in this matter due to the fact that appellant Mary Ann Daniels was not provided a timely evaluation and psychiatric report by the Director of the Department of Health and Human Services (DHS) and a…”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-314(e) — 3 cases

Bailey v. State, 95 S.W.3d 811 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002).

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.