Ark. Code Ann. » Title 5 Chapter 03
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-3-103 (2026)

Solicitation and conspiracy — Defenses and claims that are not defenses

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. It is a defense to a prosecution for solicitation or conspiracy to commit an offense that:
    1. The defendant is a victim of the offense; or
    2. The offense is defined so that the defendant's conduct is inevitably incident to the commission of the offense.
  2. It is not a defense to a prosecution for conspiracy or solicitation to commit an offense that:
    1. The defendant or the person whom the defendant solicits or with whom the defendant conspires does not occupy a particular position or have a particular characteristic that is an element of that offense, if the defendant believes that one (1) of the persons does;
    2. The person whom the defendant solicits or with whom the defendant conspires is irresponsible or is immune to prosecution or conviction for the commission of the offense or has feigned agreement;
    3. The person whom the defendant solicits or with whom the defendant conspires has not been charged with, prosecuted for, convicted of, or has been acquitted of an offense based upon the conduct alleged or has been convicted of a different offense or degree of offense, even if the defendant and the person whom the defendant solicits or with whom the defendant conspires were tried jointly;
    4. The person whom the defendant solicits or with whom the defendant conspires could not be guilty of committing that offense because that person is unaware of the criminal nature of the conduct in question or of the defendant's criminal purpose; or
    5. The offense charged, as defined, can be committed only by a particular class of persons, and the defendant, not belonging to that particular class of persons, is for that reason legally incapable of committing the offense in an individual capacity unless imposing liability on the defendant is inconsistent with the purpose of the provision establishing the defendant's incapacity.

History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 713; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-713; Acts 1995, No. 1294, § 2.

A.C.R.C. Notes. Acts 1995, No. 1294, § 3, provided:

“By these amendments the General Assembly of the State of Arkansas legislatively overrules Yedrysek v. State, 293 Ark. 541, 739 S.W.2d 672 (1987).”

Research References

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Survey — Criminal Law, 11 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 175.

Case Notes

Defense to Prosecution.

It is not a defense to a prosecution for conspiracy to commit an offense that the person with whom the defendant is alleged to have conspired has not been charged, prosecuted, convicted, or has been acquitted of an offense based upon the conduct alleged. Shamlin v. State, 19 Ark. App. 165, 718 S.W.2d 462 (1986); Shamlin v. State, 23 Ark. App. 39, 743 S.W.2d 1 (1988), rehearing denied, 23 Ark. App. 39, 744 S.W.2d 405 (1988), cert. denied, Shamlin v. Arkansas, 488 U.S. 863, 109 S. Ct. 163 (1988).

It is no defense that co-conspirators have been either acquitted or convicted of a different offense as the rationale allowing for inconsistent verdicts in conspiracy cases where the conspirators are separately tried does not pertain in the case of joint trials; unlike where separate trials are involved, in a joint trial the state tries the co-conspirator by use of the same proof bearing on the same charges and offered before the same court or jury. Yedrysek v. State, 293 Ark. 541, 739 S.W.2d 672 (1987).

Evidence.

Evidence held sufficient to support conviction. Guinn v. State, 23 Ark. App. 5, 740 S.W.2d 148 (1987).

Cited: Chronister v. State, 265 Ark. 437, 580 S.W.2d 676 (1979).

Subchapter 2 — Criminal Attempt

Publisher's Notes. For Comments regarding the Criminal Code, see Commentaries Volume B.

Research References

ALR.

Impossibility of consummation as defense to prosecution for attempt. 41 A.L.R.4th 588.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Survey of Arkansas Law: Criminal Law, 4 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 189.

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1994–1994 · leading case: Jones v. State, 871 S.W.2d 403 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Jones v. State, 871 S.W.2d 403 (Ark. Ct. App. 1994). · cites it 4× “From our review of the record, we cannot conclude that appellant’s conviction for conspiracy to commit capital murder is not supported by substantial evidence. While the agreement between appellant and Officer Litchford may not have been expressly stated in so many words, the…”
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.