Ark. Code Ann. § 5-3-301 (2026)
Conduct constituting solicitation — Classification
-
A person solicits the commission of an offense if, with the purpose of promoting or facilitating the commission of a specific offense, the person commands, urges, or requests another person to engage in specific conduct that would:
- Constitute that offense;
- Constitute an attempt to commit that offense;
- Cause the result specified by the definition of that offense; or
- Establish the other person's complicity in the commission or attempted commission of that offense.
-
Criminal solicitation is a:
- Class A felony if the offense solicited is capital murder, treason, or a Class Y felony;
- Class B felony if the offense solicited is a Class A felony;
- Class C felony if the offense solicited is a Class B felony;
- Class D felony if the offense solicited is a Class C felony;
- Class A misdemeanor if the offense solicited is a Class D felony or an unclassified felony;
- Class B misdemeanor if the offense solicited is a Class A misdemeanor;
- Class C misdemeanor if the offense solicited is a Class B misdemeanor; or
- Violation if the offense solicited is a Class C misdemeanor or an unclassified misdemeanor.
History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 705; 1981, No. 620, § 4; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-705.
Cross References. Fines, § 5-4-201.
Term of imprisonment, § 5-4-401.
Case Notes
Evidence.
In a trial for solicitation to commit first-degree murder, evidence of the instrumentality to be used in the murder was entirely relevant since it clearly evidenced the purpose of the solicitation as well as the means that defendant promoted to perpetrate foul play; thus, a simulated bomb and a videotape depicting its detonation qualified as proof of a material fact under Evid. Rule 401. Loy v. State, 310 Ark. 33, 832 S.W.2d 499 (1992).
There was sufficient evidence to uphold defendant's conviction of solicitation of capital murder under this section where the record showed that appellant urged undercover officer to engage in specific conduct that would constitute capital murder under § 5-10-101. Jimenez v. State, 83 Ark. App. 377, 128 S.W.3d 483 (2003).
Evidence was sufficient for a conviction of committing sexual indecency with a child where defendant offered a 14 year old girl money in exchange for sex, she understood that he had meant sexual intercourse and that he was serious, and his request amounted to solicitation; further, the appellate court found no merit in defendant's argument that he was merely rhetorically questioning a 14-year-old girl about sex, rather than soliciting her. Heape v. State, 87 Ark. App. 370, 192 S.W.3d 281 (2004).
Jury Instructions.
Trial court properly refused to instruct the jury, in connection with defendant's trial for solicitation to commit capital murder in violation of this section, on the defense of impossibility because there was no evidence to support a finding that the murder of the police officers was inherently unlikely. Jimenez v. State, 83 Ark. App. 377, 128 S.W.3d 483 (2003).
Cited: Chronister v. State, 265 Ark. 437, 580 S.W.2d 676 (1979); Fisk v. State, 5 Ark. App. 5, 631 S.W.2d 626 (1982).