Ark. Code Ann. § 5-37-302 (2026)

Research References

Ark. L. Rev.

State v. Havens, 337 Ark. 161, 987 S.W.2d 686 (Ark. 1999), 52 Ark. L. Rev. 530.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Legislative Survey, Criminal Law, 4 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 583.

Murphey, Acceptance and Dishonor: “Payable Through” Drafts and Personal Money Orders, 5 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 519.

Case Notes

Construction.

Former similar section was highly penal and must be strictly construed. Cousins v. State, 202 Ark. 500, 151 S.W.2d 658 (1941) (decision under prior law).

Applicability.

Checks drawn outside this state upon a bank in this state were within the purview of former similar statute. Cousins v. State, 202 Ark. 500, 151 S.W.2d 658 (1941) (decision under prior law).

Former similar section was not applicable to the case of a postdated check as there is nothing in the act which made it unlawful to promise and fail to pay at a future date. Smith v. State, 147 Ark. 49, 226 S.W. 531 (1921) (decision under prior law).

Payment of a preexisting debt by a worthless check is not a violation of this section. Ridenhour v. State, 279 Ark. 240, 650 S.W.2d 575 (1983).

Burden of Proof.

Proof by the state that the defendant gave a check on a bank which was not paid because he had no money there made a prima facie case of guilt under former section and imposed the burden on the defendant to show that he was not notified so that he might immediately make a deposit to cover the check. Collier v. State, 183 Ark. 1057, 40 S.W.2d 455 (1931) (decision under prior law).

In a prosecution for violation of the overdraft statute, the defendant, having failed to make good the check within the statutory period after notice of its dishonor, had the burden of overcoming the prima facie case made against him. Brewer v. State, 195 Ark. 477, 112 S.W.2d 976 (1938) (decision under prior law).

Defenses.

It was no defense that a third person guaranteed payment of the check to the payee and did pay it when it was returned by the bank stamped “No Acct.” Tolbert v. State, 244 Ark. 1067, 428 S.W.2d 264 (1968).

Elements of Offense.

Elements of the offense are: Intent to defraud and making, drawing or delivering a check for the payment of money on a bank, knowing at the time that there were insufficient funds in the account to pay the check. Smith v. State, 206 Ark. 154, 174 S.W.2d 555 (1943) (decision under prior law).

It is not essential that defendant received money at the time the check involved was given, if he had received the money before and the check was for payment of the money previously obtained. Smith v. State, 206 Ark. 154, 174 S.W.2d 555 (1943) (decision under prior law).

Evidence.

Where defendant failed to abstract evidence, conviction could not be reversed on mere showing that check was postdated. Patterson v. State, 194 Ark. 488, 107 S.W.2d 545 (1937), overruled in part, Bukowczyk v. State, 42 S.W.3d 590 (2001) (decision under prior law).

Testimony held sufficient to establish that funds in the account were insufficient to pay the check. Smith v. State, 206 Ark. 154, 174 S.W.2d 555 (1943) (decision under prior law).

Evidence held sufficient to carry the case to the jury on question of presentment, in the absence of specific objection. Smith v. State, 206 Ark. 154, 174 S.W.2d 555 (1943) (decision under prior law).

Evidence held insufficient to support conviction. Edens v. State, 235 Ark. 284, 357 S.W.2d 641 (1962).

Evidence held sufficient to sustain the defendant's conviction. Reed v. State, 267 Ark. 1017, 593 S.W.2d 472 (Ct. App. 1980); Walker v. State, 10 Ark. App. 189, 662 S.W.2d 196 (1983); .

The giving of a postdated check, bearing the notation, “hold in lieu of loan check,” did not constitute a violation of this section as the postdated nature of the check coupled with the memorandum contained therein should have put the payee on notice that the check was not eligible for presentment of payment until a future date and, therefore, intent to defraud was not established. Bukowczyk v. State, 42 S.W.3d 590 (2001).

Fraud.

While in some circumstances one could be guilty of perpetrating a fraud by giving a bad check in payment of a debt, the evidence showed that party was not defrauded by other person giving him a check and all that would be lost would be the time to present a worthless check. Edens v. State, 235 Ark. 284, 357 S.W.2d 641 (1962).

Indictment or Information.

It is unnecessary to negative exception by alleging that defendant was notified that check had not been paid. Collier v. State, 183 Ark. 1057, 40 S.W.2d 455 (1931) (decision under prior law).

Information charging the giving of a check without sufficient funds and without arrangements to pay the check, and failure to make good within statutory period after notice, was amendable by inserting “and with the intent to defraud.” Brewer v. State, 195 Ark. 477, 112 S.W.2d 976 (1938) (decision under prior law).

Knowledge and Intent.

Intent to defraud and knowledge of insufficient funds may be shown by refusal of payment by the drawee and failure of drawer to make the check good within statutory period after notice. Smith v. State, 206 Ark. 154, 174 S.W.2d 555 (1943) (decision under prior law).

In a prosecution under this section, the fact that defendant had made complete restitution before he was arrested does not disprove the intent to defraud, if the original transaction was criminal, the fact that restitution was made is not in itself a defense as the question for the trial court is whether the accused had the requisite dishonest intent in the first instance. Garroute v. State, 241 Ark. 285, 408 S.W.2d 485 (1966).

The admission in evidence of other bad checks purportedly issued by the defendant for the purpose of showing “the mode, or method, or scheme of operation of the defendant, the motive and his guilty knowledge and intent” was not error where the court limited the jury's consideration of them to such purpose by its instructions. Tolbert v. State, 244 Ark. 1067, 428 S.W.2d 264 (1968).

Other checks previously issued by the defendant upon insufficient funds were admissible as tending to show criminal intent. Swan v. State, 245 Ark. 154, 431 S.W.2d 475 (1968).

Presumption.

Failure to pay check within statutory period after notice of its dishonor raised the presumption that it was given with the intent to defraud. Brewer v. State, 195 Ark. 477, 112 S.W.2d 976 (1938) (decision under prior law).

Thing of Value.

Where purchaser gave one large check to the seller in exchange for three smaller checks he had previously written to the seller which had been returned for insufficient funds, the purchaser did not obtain anything of value by his exchange of the checks and therefore, the purchaser could not be found guilty under this section when the large check was also returned for insufficient funds since nothing of value was either given or received by the exchange of checks. Ridenhour v. State, 279 Ark. 240, 650 S.W.2d 575 (1983).

Cited: State v. Jacks, 243 Ark. 77, 418 S.W.2d 622 (1967); Stone v. State, 254 Ark. 1011, 498 S.W.2d 634 (1973); In re Porter, 462 F. Supp. 370 (E.D. Ark. 1978); Baird v. State, 266 Ark. 250, 583 S.W.2d 60 (1979); Knapp v. State, 283 Ark. 346, 676 S.W.2d 729 (1984); Machen Ford-Lincoln-Mercury, Inc. v. Michaelis, 284 Ark. 255, 681 S.W.2d 326 (1984); In re Brown, 51 B.R. 51 (Bankr. E.D. Ark. 1985); Gill v. State, 290 Ark. 1, 716 S.W.2d 746 (1986); Culpepper v. Biggers, 742 F. Supp. 528 (E.D. Ark. 1990).