Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-315 (2026)

Discharge or conditional release

✓ current as of May 2026

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

1. 1. When the Secretary of the Department of Human Services or his or her designee determines that a person acquitted has recovered from his or her mental disease or defect to such an extent that his or her release or his or her conditional release under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to the property of another person, the secretary shall promptly file an application for discharge or conditional release of the person acquitted with the circuit court that ordered the commitment.
  2. In addition, if the person acquitted has an impairment due to alcohol or substance abuse, the secretary may petition the circuit court for involuntary commitment under § 20-64-815.
2. The secretary shall send a copy of the application to the counsel for the person acquitted and to the attorney for the state.
1. Within twenty (20) days after receiving the application for discharge or conditional release of the person acquitted, the attorney for the state may petition the circuit court for a hearing to determine whether the person acquitted should be released.
2. If the attorney for the state does not request a hearing, the circuit court may conduct a hearing on its own motion or discharge the person acquitted.
If the circuit court finds after a hearing under subsection (b) of this section by the standard specified in § 5-2-314(e) that the person acquitted has recovered from his or her mental disease or defect to such an extent that:
1. The discharge of the person acquitted would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another person, then the circuit court shall order that the person acquitted be immediately discharged; or
2. The conditional release of the person acquitted under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment would no longer create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another person, then the circuit court shall order:
  1. That the person acquitted be conditionally released under a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment that has been:
    1. Prepared for the person acquitted;
    2. Certified to the circuit court as appropriate by the director of the facility in which the person acquitted is committed; and
    3. Found by the circuit court to be appropriate; and
  2. Explicit conditions of release, including without limitation requirements that:
    1. The person acquitted comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment;
    2. The person acquitted be subject to regularly scheduled personal contact with a compliance monitor for the purpose of verifying compliance with the conditions of release;
    3. Compliance with the conditions of release be documented with the circuit court by the compliance monitor at ninety-day intervals or at such intervals as the circuit court may order; and
    4. Impose the conditions of release for a period of up to five (5) years.
If the circuit court determines that the person acquitted has not met his or her burden of proof under subsection (c) of this section, the person acquitted shall continue to be committed to the custody of the Department of Human Services.
A person ordered to be in charge of a prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment of a person acquitted shall provide:
1. The prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment;
2. Periodic written documentation to a compliance monitor of compliance with the conditions of release, including, but not limited to, documentation of compliance with the prescribed:
  1. Medication;
  2. Treatment and therapy;
  3. Substance abuse treatment; and
  4. Drug testing; and
3. 1. Written notice of any failure of the person acquitted to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment to the:
    1. Compliance monitor;
    2. Attorney for the person acquitted;
    3. Attorney for the state; and
    4. Circuit court having jurisdiction.
  2. The written notice under subdivision (e)(3)(A) of this section shall be provided immediately upon the failure of the person acquitted to comply with a condition of release.
  3. 1. Upon the written notice under subdivision (e)(3)(A) of this section or upon other probable cause to believe that the person acquitted has failed to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, the person acquitted may be detained and shall be taken without unnecessary delay before the circuit court having jurisdiction over him or her.
    2. After a hearing, the circuit court shall determine whether the person acquitted should be remanded to an appropriate facility on the ground that, in light of his or her failure to comply with the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment, his or her continued release would create a substantial risk of bodily injury to another person or serious damage to property of another person.
  4. At any time after a hearing employing the same criteria, the circuit court may modify or eliminate the prescribed regimen of medical, psychiatric, or psychological care or treatment.
1. Regardless of whether the secretary or his or her designee has filed an application pursuant to a provision of subsection (a) of this section, and at any time during the commitment of the person acquitted, a person acquitted, his or her counsel, or his or her legal guardian may file with the circuit court that ordered the commitment a motion for a hearing to determine whether the person acquitted should be discharged from the facility in which the person acquitted is committed.
2. However, no motion under subdivision (f)(1) of this section may be filed more than one (1) time every one hundred eighty (180) days.
3. A copy of the motion under subdivision (f)(1) of this section shall be sent to the:
  1. Director of the facility in which the person acquitted is committed; and
  2. Attorney for the state.

History. Acts 1989, No. 645, § 4; 1989, No. 911, § 4; 1995, No. 609, § 2; 1995, No. 767, § 4; 1997, No. 922, § 2; 2011, No. 990, § 1; 2019, No. 910, §§ 5122, 5123.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 1989, No. 645, § 4, and No. 911, § 4, provided, in part, that the “provisions of this section shall be in lieu of Arkansas Code § 5-2-315 and shall apply to persons who are acquitted by reason of mental disease or defect after the effective date of this act.” Former § 5-2-315 derived from Acts 1975, No. 280, § 613; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-613.

Amendments. The 2011 amendment inserted “including without limitation requirements” in (c)(2)(B); and added (c)(2)(B)(iv).

The 2019 amendment substituted “Secretary of the Department of Human Services” for “Director of the Department of Human Services” in (a)(1)(A); and substituted “secretary” for “director” throughout (a) and in (f)(1).

Case Notes

Applicability.

The court correctly proceeded under this section and § 5-2-314, 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).

Defendant did not prove by clear and convincing evidence that he should have been released outright instead of receiving a conditional release; defendant suffered from bipolar disorder for which he had to take medicine to control, and there was evidence that defendant would stop taking his medication and again return to a natural remedy. Bailey v. State, 80 Ark. App. 193, 95 S.W.3d 811 (2002).

Acquitee's confinement was not solely dependent on a department of human services (DHS) determination that he was fit for release; while it was true that an acquittee could be released upon recommendation of the DHS, the acquittee himself could apply for a release pursuant to subdivision (f)(1) of this section, and that remedy was available to the acquitee notwithstanding the fact that it was not referenced in the final disposition order. Gibson v. State, 89 Ark. App. 184, 201 S.W.3d 422 (2005).

Commitment Constitutional.

Confinement based on a criminal commitment pursuant to § 5-2-314 and a former version of this section did not violate Ark. Const., Art. 2, § 8 or U.S. Const. Amend. 14, since the commitment had to be based on a finding that the defendant was a danger to himself and other persons or property and was 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).

Quasi-Judicial Immunity.

Because a lawsuit sought to hold a psychiatrist liable for the psychiatrist's performance of functions integral to the judicial process in providing psychiatric treatment to a conditional releasee as mandated by the conditional release order, the psychiatrist was entitled to quasi-judicial immunity when the releasee murdered the decedent; although the psychiatrist was not specifically identified in the conditional release order, the psychiatrist's treatment of the releasee expressly arose from the conditional release order and was within the scope of that order. Martin v. Smith, 2019 Ark. 232, 576 S.W.3d 32 (2019).

Cited: Owens v. Taylor, 299 Ark. 373, 772 S.W.2d 596 (1989).

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 13 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1989–2022 · leading case: State v. Owens, 260 S.W.3d 288 (Ark. 2007).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

State v. Owens, 260 S.W.3d 288 (Ark. 2007). · cites it 8× “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…”

Miller v. State, 362 S.W.3d 264 (Ark. 2010). · cites it 2× “Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-2-315 (Supp.2009) sets out the procedure by which a person who has been acquitted on the basis of a mental disease or defect can be released from custody if it is determined that the person has recovered from the mental disease or defect.”

Davasher v. State, 823 S.W.2d 863 (Ark. 1992). · cites it 2× “Commitment of the defendant to the state hospital, upon a judgment of acquittal, may be commenced by the circuit court with resolution resting in the probate court.”

George v. State, 92 S.W.3d 692 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 20× “That is not the standard by which a release is to be judged.”

Owens v. Taylor, 772 S.W.2d 596 (Ark. 1989). · cites it 2× “James McDaniel, stating that Owens lacked the capacity to conform his conduct to the requirements of the law at the time of the alleged offense, declared that Owens should be acquitted by reason of insanity pursuant to the provisions of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-315 (1987). 1 On…”

Martin v. Smith, 560 S.W.3d 787 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018). · cites it 18× “Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-315 (e). The reason for the monitoring and reporting requirement is that the circuit court has continuing jurisdiction over the acquitted person.”

Manning v. State, 61 S.W.3d 910 (Ark. Ct. App. 2001). · cites it 2× “The governing statute provides that: If, within five (5) years after the order pursuant to § 5-2-314 or § 5-2-315 granting conditional release, the court shall determine, after notice to the conditionally released person and a hearing, that such person has violated the…”

Gibson v. State, 201 S.W.3d 422 (Ark. Ct. App. 2005). · cites it 4× “While it is true that an acquittee may be released upon recommendation of the DHS, see Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-315 (a)(l) (Repl. 1997), the acquittee himself may apply for a release pursuant to Ark.”

Meranda Martin, Successor Special Adm'x of the Est. of Virgil Brown, Jr. v. Dr. Leslie Smith, 2019 Ark. 232 (Ark. 2019). · cites it 7× “See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-315 (Repl. 2013). Under the terms of the conditional release order, McFadden was also receiving psychiatric treatment provided by Gain’s medical director, board-certified psychiatrist Dr.”

Cleveland v. Frazier, 999 S.W.2d 188 (Ark. 1999). · cites it 2× “Almost three years later, on March 15, 1996, the Pulaski County Probate Court entered an order of conditional release pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-315 (Repl. 1997) that allowed Mr.”

State of Louisiana Versus Jamaal Edwards (La. Ct. App. 2022). · cites it 2× “LEXIS 257289 (evaluating only the risk the defendant poses to others after their mental condition is subsided or controlled via medication). 5 In a broader sense, Arkansas’ statutory code states a defendant must, “recover to the point” they are no longer a danger to themselves…”

Bailey v. State, 95 S.W.3d 811 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). · cites it 3× “Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-2-315 (a)(2)(C) (Repl. 1997) provides further that: (C) If, after the hearing, the court finds by the standard specified in § 5-2-314(e) that the person has recovered from his mental disease or defect to such an extent that: (i) His release would no…”

Show all 13 citing cases →

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-315(a)(1) — 1 case

George v. State, 92 S.W.3d 692 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). “That is not the standard by which a release is to be judged.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-315(a)(2)(C) — 1 case

George v. State, 92 S.W.3d 692 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). “That is not the standard by which a release is to be judged.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-315(a)(2)(C)(ii) — 1 case

Barnett v. State, 942 S.W.2d 860 (Ark. 1997).

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-315(a)(l) — 1 case

George v. State, 92 S.W.3d 692 (Ark. Ct. App. 2002). “That is not the standard by which a release is to be judged.”

— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-315(e) — 2 cases

Martin v. Smith, 560 S.W.3d 787 (Ark. Ct. App. 2018). “Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-315 (e). The reason for the monitoring and reporting requirement is that the circuit court has continuing jurisdiction over the acquitted person.”

Meranda Martin, Successor Special Adm'x of the Est. of Virgil Brown, Jr. v. Dr. Leslie Smith, 2019 Ark. 232 (Ark. 2019). “See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-315 (Repl. 2013). Under the terms of the conditional release order, McFadden was also receiving psychiatric treatment provided by Gain’s medical director, board-certified psychiatrist Dr.”

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.