Ark. Code Ann. » Title 5 Chapter 53
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-112 (2020)

Retaliation against a witness, informant, or juror

✓ Arkansas Code release r76: Acts through about 2020 (2021-2025 sessions missing)
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. A person commits the offense of retaliation against a witness, informant, or juror if he or she harms or threatens to harm another by any unlawful act in retaliation for anything lawfully done in the capacity of witness, informant, or juror.
  2. Retaliation against a witness, informant, or juror is a Class C felony.
  3. “Informant” means a person who provides information to any law enforcement agency in an effort to assist the law enforcement agency in solving a crime or apprehending a person suspected of a criminal offense.

History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 2612; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-2612; Acts 1997, No. 1238, § 1; 2005, No. 1994, § 465; 2019, No. 1017, § 4.

Amendments. The 2005 amendment inserted “or she” in (a); substituted “informant, a juror, or a witness” for “informant who is recognized as such by the county sheriff, the chief of police of a first or second class city, an officer of the State Police, or any of their respective designees” in (b); and rewrote (c).

The 2019 amendment substituted “Class C felony” for “Class D felony” in (b).

Research References

Ark. L. Notes.

Flaccus, The Employment-at-Will Doctrine — The Report of Its Death Has Been Much Exaggerated, 1989 Ark. L. Notes 15.

U. Ark. Little Rock L.J.

Note, Labor — Employment at Will — Public Policy Exception Recognized, Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988), 11 U. Ark. Little Rock L.J. 617.

Case Notes

Applicability.

The public policy exception to the at-will-employment doctrine does not embrace the claim of an employee fired for threatening to undermine an employer's private, contractual relationships. Skrable v. Saint Vincent Infirmary, 57 Ark. App. 164, 943 S.W.2d 236 (1997).

Public Policy.

Public policy of the state is contravened if an employer discharges an employee for reporting a violation of state or federal law. Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 294 Ark. 239, 743 S.W.2d 380 (1988).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 4 cases (1 in the last 5 years), 1988–2025 · leading case: Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 743 S.W.2d 380 (Ark. 1988).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Sterling Drug, Inc. v. Oxford, 743 S.W.2d 380 (Ark. 1988). · cites it 12× “Ark.Code Ann. § 5-53-112 (1987) provides: (1) A person commits the offense of retaliation against a witness, informant, or juror if he harms or threatens to harm another by any unlawful act in retaliation *386 for anything lawfully done in the capacity of witness, informant, or…”
Gouge v. BAX Global, Inc., 252 F. Supp. 2d 509 (N.D. Ohio 2003). “The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-112 , a statute criminalizing retaliation against witnesses, informants, and jurors, establishes an Arkansas public policy in favor of citizen informants *523 or crime fighters.”
Skrable v. St. Vincent Infirmary, 943 S.W.2d 236 (Ark. Ct. App. 1997). · cites it 2× “In finding that appellee had a claim for wrongful discharge, the court noted that a state’s public policy is found in its constitution and statutes, and it referred to Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-112 (Repl. 1993), which provides: (1) A person commits the offense of retaliation against…”
Lucy Dooley v. Daily & Woods, PLLC; & Doug Carson, No. CV-24-404 (Ark. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2025). · cites it 10× “In support of her claim, she cited Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-53-112 (Repl. 2024), which criminalizes retaliation against an informant, and Dooley argued that there was “an established public policy favoring citizen informants.”
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-53-112(c): 1 case
Lucy Dooley v. Daily & Woods, PLLC; & Doug Carson, No. CV-24-404 (Ark. Ct. App. Sept. 17, 2025). “In support of her claim, she cited Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-53-112 (Repl. 2024), which criminalizes retaliation against an informant, and Dooley argued that there was “an established public policy favoring citizen informants.”
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.