Ark. Code Ann. § 5-4-102 (2026)
Presentence investigation
- If punishment is fixed by the court, the court may order a presentence investigation before imposing sentence.
-
-
The presentence investigation should be conducted by a presentence officer or another person designated by the court and should include an analysis of:
- The circumstances surrounding the commission of the offense;
- The defendant's history of delinquency or criminality, physical and mental condition, family situation and background, economic status, education, occupation, and personal habits; and
- Any other matter that the investigator deems relevant or the court directs to be included.
- In a case involving a violation of § 5-11-106 in which a minor was unlawfully detained, restrained, taken, enticed, or kept, the presentence investigation shall include ascertaining the expenses incurred by a law enforcement agency, the Department of Human Services, and the lawful custodian in searching for and returning the minor to the lawful custodian.
-
The presentence investigation should be conducted by a presentence officer or another person designated by the court and should include an analysis of:
-
- Before imposing sentence, the court may order the defendant to submit to psychiatric examination and evaluation for a period not to exceed thirty (30) days.
- The defendant may be remanded for psychiatric examination and evaluation to the Arkansas State Hospital, or the court may appoint a qualified psychiatrist to make the psychiatric examination and evaluation.
-
- Before imposing sentence, the court shall advise the defendant or his or her counsel of the factual contents and conclusions of any presentence investigation or psychiatric examination and evaluation and afford fair opportunity, if the defendant so requests, to controvert the factual contents and conclusions.
- A source of confidential information does not need to be disclosed.
- If the defendant is sentenced to imprisonment, a copy of the report of any presentence investigation or psychiatric examination or evaluation shall be transmitted immediately to the Division of Correction or, when the defendant is committed to the custody of a specific institution, to that specific institution.
History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 804; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-804; Acts 1987, No. 487, § 2; 2019, No. 910, § 647.
Amendments. The 2019 amendment substituted “Division of Correction” for “Department of Correction” in (e).
Case Notes
Defendant's Rights.
Where the sentencing court informed the defendant of the numerous factors that it was considering prior to pronouncing a sentence, and the defendant made no objection and did not request an opportunity to controvert the information under consideration, then the court committed no reversible error by considering such information in determining the defendant's sentence. Nash v. State, 267 Ark. 870, 591 S.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1979).
The defendant does not have the right to confront the witnesses against him on matters incident to sentencing. Nash v. State, 267 Ark. 870, 591 S.W.2d 670 (Ct. App. 1979).
Introduction of all defendant's prior convictions was unnecessary, and denied him protection of this section. Tatum v. State, 21 Ark. App. 237, 731 S.W.2d 227 (1987).
Presentence Report.
While it would have been better practice for the trial court to have permitted the defendant to prepare and submit a presentence report, in deciding the prison terms were to run consecutively, the trial court made reference to the evidence he had already heard, and thus it appeared that he exercised his discretion and did not just mechanically make the sentences consecutive. Scott v. State, 284 Ark. 388, 681 S.W.2d 915 (1985).
Nothing in this section requires that the trial judge follow the recommendation of the presentence report or that he specify the relative weight he attached to each element contained in the report before he sentences a defendant. Noland v. State, 265 Ark. 764, 580 S.W.2d 953 (1979).
Although this section states that the trial court “may” order a presentence investigation and report, if it fixes the punishment, there is no authority requiring the trial court to do so. Brown v. State, 278 Ark. 604, 648 S.W.2d 67 (1983).
Where punishment is to be fixed by the jury, a presentence report is not required to be given to the jury when the issue of punishment is submitted. Ricarte v. State, 290 Ark. 100, 717 S.W.2d 488 (1986).
Court did not abuse its discretion by admitting the presentence report into evidence, because the probation officer's report was not admitted as expert testimony and the court assured defendant it would give the report the proper weight, and defendant was aware of the contents of the report and elicited contradictory testimony from the therapist. Howerton v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 331, 413 S.W.3d 861 (2012).