Ark. Code Ann. » Title 5 Chapter 60
Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-101 (2026)

Abuse of a corpse

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. A person commits abuse of a corpse if, except as authorized by law, he or she knowingly:
    1. Disinters, removes, dissects, or mutilates a corpse; or
      1. Physically mistreats or conceals a corpse in a manner offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities.
      2. A person who conceals a corpse in a manner offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities that results in the corpse remaining concealed is continuing in a course of conduct under § 5-1-109(e)(1)(B).
        1. As used in this section, “in a manner offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities” means in a manner that is outside the normal practices of handling or disposing of a corpse.
        2. “In a manner offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities” includes without limitation the dismembering, submerging, or burning of a corpse.
  2. Abuse of a corpse is a Class C felony.

History. Acts 1975, No. 280, § 2920; A.S.A. 1947, § 41-2920; Acts 2011, No. 1003, § 1; 2011, No. 1158, § 1.

Amendments. The 2011 amendment by No. 1003 added the (a)(2)(A) designation; inserted “or conceals” in (a)(2)(A); and added (a)(2)(B).

The 2011 amendment by No. 1158 substituted “Class C felony” for “Class D felony” in (b).

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

This section is not unconstitutionally vague, as it conveys fair and sufficient warning when measured by common understanding. Dougan v. State, 322 Ark. 384, 912 S.W.2d 400 (1995).

Applicability.

The legislature intended that this section cover defendant's placement of her baby's corpse in a dumpster, as such an act constitutes a form of mishandling, abuse, or neglect. There was sufficient proof from which the jury could have concluded that defendant's conduct amounted to physical mistreatment of a corpse in a manner offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities. Dougan v. State, 322 Ark. 384, 912 S.W.2d 400 (1995).

Autopsy.

An insurer's right under an accident policy to make an autopsy was not barred by former section concerning the removal of a dead body from the grave. Standard Accident Ins. Co. v. Rossi, 35 F.2d 667 (8th Cir. 1929) (decision under prior law).

Evidence.

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for abuse of a corpse, where the victim's remains were found in 55-gallon garbage bags, secured by duct tape, and covered with a tarp; defendant's mishandling or neglect of the victim's body constituted physical mistreatment that would offend a person of reasonable sensibilities. Dailey v. State, 101 Ark. App. 394, 278 S.W.3d 120 (2008).

Evidence did not support defendant's conviction for abuse of a corpse, as the delay in reporting the decedent's death (from 11:00 p.m until after the decedent's children left for school the next morning) had no adverse affect on the decedent's family and defendant did not knowingly mistreat the corpse in a manner offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities. Hammonds v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 465, 375 S.W.3d 713 (2010).

Circuit court's denial of defendant's directed-verdict motion on the abuse of a corpse charge was affirmed where the evidence showed that he had dug a grave near his home and buried the victim's body, thereby concealing her body, and, by finding him guilty of violating the statute, the jury concluded that he did so outside the normal practices of handling or disposing of a corpse. Williams v. State, 2015 Ark. 316, 468 S.W.3d 776 (2015).

Statute of Limitations.

Although beheading and dismembering a corpse fell within the confines of this section, defendant's conviction had to be dismissed because she was not charged with the crime before the three-year limitations period ran and the submerging of the body did not qualify as a continuing course of conduct crime to toll the limitations period. McClanahan v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 493, 324 S.W.3d 692 (2009), aff'd, 2010 Ark. 39, 358 S.W.3d 900 (2010) (decision under prior law).

Prosecution for abuse of a corpse under subsection (a) of this section was barred by the three-year statute of limitations under § 5-1-109(b)(2) because it was not a continuing-course-of-conduct crime; once defendant disposed of the body parts in a pond, she was no longer physically mistreating the corpse. McClanahan v. State, 2010 Ark. 39, 358 S.W.3d 900 (2010) (decision under prior law).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 10 cases (4 in the last 5 years), 1995–2025 · leading case: Dougan v. State, 912 S.W.2d 400 (Ark. 1995).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Dougan v. State, 912 S.W.2d 400 (Ark. 1995). · cites it 15× “The appellant, Kimberly Ann Dougan, was convicted of abuse of a corpse, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-101 (Repl. 1993), sentenced to six years’ imprisonment, and ordered to pay a $10,000.”
McClanahan v. State, 358 S.W.3d 900 (Ark. 2010). · cites it 5× “While there was certainly evidence that McCla-nahan abused the corpse of her husband, she was not charged with the crime of abuse of a corpse before the expiration of the limitations period and, as such, the circuit court abused its discretion in denying her motion to dismiss.…”
Williams v. State, 468 S.W.3d 776 (Ark. 2015). · cites it 3× “Abuse of a Corpse Williams further asserts that, although he buried Walton’s body, he committed no act falling within the offense of abuse of a corpse, codified at Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-60-101 (Supp. 2013), which provides: (a) A person commits abuse of a corpse if, except…”
Shawn Cone v. State of Arkansas, 2022 Ark. 201 (Ark. 2022). · cites it 2× “The offense of “Abuse of a Corpse” is codified under Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-60-101 as follows: (a) A person commits abuse of a corpse if, except as authorized by law, he or she knowingly: (1) Disinters, removes, dissects, or mutilates a corpse; or (2)(A) Physically…”
Hammonds v. State, 375 S.W.3d 713 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). · cites it 38× “Our supreme court’s initial interpretation of Ark.Code Ann. § 5-60-101 took into account common law in effect at the time of the statute’s passage.”
Dailey v. State, 278 S.W.3d 120 (Ark. Ct. App. 2008). · cites it 2× “” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-101 (Repl. 2005). The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that one who mishandles or neglects a corpse may also be guilty of the abuse of a corpse.”
McClanahan v. State, 324 S.W.3d 692 (Ark. Ct. App. 2009). · cites it 5× “|sAbuse of a corpse is a class D felony that occurs when someone knowingly “[d]isinters, removes, dissects, or mutilates a corpse”; or “[plhysically mistreats a corpse in a manner offensive to a person of reasonable sensibilities.”
Lillian Househog v. State of Arkansas, 2024 Ark. App. 393 (Ark. Ct. App. 2024). “§ 5-60-101 (Repl. 2016), a person commits abuse of a corpse if, except as authorized by law, he or she knowingly: (1) Disinters, removes, dissects, or mutilates a corpse; or (2)(A) Physically mistreats or conceals a corpse in a manner offensive to a person of reasonable…”
Derek Payne v. State of Arkansas, 2025 Ark. App. 250 (Ark. Ct. App. 2025). · cites it 4× “Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-101 (a)(2)(A) (Repl.”
State v. Schaeffer-Patton (Del. Super. Ct. 2022). “”23 Thus, knowledge is still a factor for a jury to consider, but through the lens of a reasonable person.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-101(a) — 2 cases
McClanahan v. State, 358 S.W.3d 900 (Ark. 2010). “While there was certainly evidence that McCla-nahan abused the corpse of her husband, she was not charged with the crime of abuse of a corpse before the expiration of the limitations period and, as such, the circuit court abused its discretion in denying her motion to dismiss.…”
Hammonds v. State, 375 S.W.3d 713 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). “Our supreme court’s initial interpretation of Ark.Code Ann. § 5-60-101 took into account common law in effect at the time of the statute’s passage.”
— Ark. Code Ann. § 5-60-101(a)(2) — 1 case
Hammonds v. State, 375 S.W.3d 713 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010). “Our supreme court’s initial interpretation of Ark.Code Ann. § 5-60-101 took into account common law in effect at the time of the statute’s passage.”
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.