Arkansas Code Annotated

Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-707 (2026)

Admissibility of drug analysis — Cross-examination

✓ current as of May 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section JustiaArk. Code CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar
  1. In any criminal prosecution for an alleged violation of this chapter, a record or report of any relevant drug analysis made by the State Crime Laboratory shall be received as competent evidence as to a matter contained in the record or report in this section in any preliminary hearing when attested to by the Director of the State Crime Laboratory or his or her assistant or deputy.
    1. Nothing in this section abrogates a defendant's right of cross-examination.
    2. If the defendant desires to cross-examine the director or the appropriate assistant or deputy, the defendant may compel the director or his or her appropriate assistant or deputy to attend court by the issuance of a proper subpoena.
    3. If the defendant compels the director or his or her appropriate assistant or deputy to attend court by the issuance of a proper subpoena:
      1. The record or report is only admissible through the director or the appropriate assistant or deputy; and
      2. The director or the appropriate assistant or deputy is subject to cross-examination by the defendant or his or her counsel.

History. Acts 1977, No. 356, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 82-2627.1; Acts 2005, No. 1994, § 313; 2019, No. 910, § 5735.

Amendments. The 2005 amendment deleted “subchapters 1-6 of” preceding “this chapter” in (a); and inserted “or her” in (a), (b)(2) and (b)(3).

The 2019 amendment deleted “Executive” preceding “Director” in (a); and deleted “executive” preceding “director” twice in (b)(2), in the introductory language of (b)(3), in (b)(3)(A), and in (b)(3)(B).

Notes of Decisions
Cited in 1 case, 1994–1994 · leading case: Robinson v. State, 879 S.W.2d 419 (Ark. 1994).
Robinson v. State, 879 S.W.2d 419 (Ark. 1994). · cites it 2× “One, Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-707 (Repl. 1993), deals with reports issued by the Arkansas Department of Health.”
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.