Browse Arkansas Code titles and sections
16-112-202. Form of motion.
Arkansas Code — all titles (historical 2020) · legal_authorities
16-112-202. Form of motion.
Except when direct appeal is available, a person convicted of a crime may make a motion for the performance of fingerprinting, forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing, or other tests which may become available through advances in technology to demonstrate the person's actual innocence if:
(1) The specific evidence to be tested was secured as a result of the conviction of an offense's being challenged under § 16-112-201;
(2) The specific evidence to be tested was not previously subjected to testing and the person making the motion under this section did not:
(A) Knowingly and voluntarily waive the right to request testing of the evidence in a court proceeding commenced on or after August 12, 2005; or
(B) Knowingly fail to request testing of the evidence in a prior motion for post-conviction testing;
(3) The specific evidence was previously subjected to testing and the person making a motion under this section requests testing that uses a new method or technology that is substantially more probative than the prior testing;
(4) The specific evidence to be tested is in the possession of the state and has been subject to a chain of custody and retained under conditions sufficient to ensure that the evidence has not been substituted, contaminated, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any respect material to the proposed testing;
(5) The proposed testing is reasonable in scope, utilizes scientifically sound methods, and is consistent with accepted forensic practices;
(6) The person making a motion under this section identifies a theory of defense that:
(A) Is not inconsistent with an affirmative defense presented at the trial of the offense being challenged under § 16-112-201; and
(B) Would establish the actual innocence
Source: Arkansas Code — historical release 78 (November 6, 2020) · 16-112-202
Stored review status: Historical 2020-11-06 source release; later amendments not reconciled; machine-extracted, not independently legally reviewed; source heading status: text_in_historical_source. A text match is a research starting point; applicability is not established.
Issuing source page ↗
Authority boundary: historical statutory source snapshot not current law.
Open the recorded source website ↗
Record provenance
Stable record: arkansas_code:legal_authorities:16-112-202
Source file: gov.ar.code.title.16.odt
Pages: Not recorded – Not recorded
Passage SHA-256: d8a45332fae3cb5414418a3c15dbaa0a43af64ecec5ff48d9f8a2000cdabe9ff
Source location: content.xml paragraph 45877
Stored source content
16-112-202. Form of motion.
Except when direct appeal is available, a person convicted of a crime may make a motion for the performance of fingerprinting, forensic deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) testing, or other tests which may become available through advances in technology to demonstrate the person's actual innocence if:
(1) The specific evidence to be tested was secured as a result of the conviction of an offense's being challenged under § 16-112-201;
(2) The specific evidence to be tested was not previously subjected to testing and the person making the motion under this section did not:
(A) Knowingly and voluntarily waive the right to request testing of the evidence in a court proceeding commenced on or after August 12, 2005; or
(B) Knowingly fail to request testing of the evidence in a prior motion for post-conviction testing;
(3) The specific evidence was previously subjected to testing and the person making a motion under this section requests testing that uses a new method or technology that is substantially more probative than the prior testing;
(4) The specific evidence to be tested is in the possession of the state and has been subject to a chain of custody and retained under conditions sufficient to ensure that the evidence has not been substituted, contaminated, tampered with, replaced, or altered in any respect material to the proposed testing;
(5) The proposed testing is reasonable in scope, utilizes scientifically sound methods, and is consistent with accepted forensic practices;
(6) The person making a motion under this section identifies a theory of defense that:
(A) Is not inconsistent with an affirmative defense presented at the trial of the offense being challenged under § 16-112-201; and
(B) Would establish the actual innocence of the person in relation to the offense being challenged under § 16-112-201;
(7) The identity of the perpetrator was at issue during the investigation or prosecution of the offense being challenged under § 16-112-201;
(8) The proposed testing of the specific evidence may produce new material evidence that would:
(A) Support the theory of defense described in subdivision (6) of this section; and
(B) Raise a reasonable probability that the person making a motion under this section did not commit the offense;
(9) The person making a motion under this section certifies that he or she will provide a deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) or other sample or a fingerprint for comparison; and
(10) The motion is made in a timely fashion subject to the following conditions:
(A) There shall be a rebuttable presumption of timeliness if the motion is made within thirty-six (36) months of the date of conviction. The presumption may be rebutted upon a showing:
(i) That the motion for a test under this section is based solely upon information used in a previously denied motion; or
(ii) Of clear and convincing evidence that the motion filed under this section was filed solely to cause delay or harassment; and
(B) There shall be a rebuttable presumption against timeliness for any motion not made within thirty-six (36) months of the date of conviction. The presumption may be rebutted upon a showing:
(i) That the person making a motion under this section was or is incompetent and the incompetence substantially contributed to the delay in the motion for a test;
(ii) That the evidence to be tested is newly discovered evidence;
(iii) That the motion is not based solely upon the person's own assertion of innocence and a denial of the motion would result in a manifest injustice;
(iv) That a new method of technology that is substantially more probative than prior testing is available; or
(v) Of good cause.
Cross-references
Connections may be documented source relationships, shared citations or nearby passages. Each explains its basis; a connection alone does not establish applicability to your situation.
Arkansas Code — all titles (historical 2020) · legal_authorities
16-112-201. Writ of Habeas Corpus — New scientific evidence.
(a) Except when direct appeal is available, a person convicted of a crime may commence a proceeding to secure relief by filing a petition in the court in which the conviction was entered to vacate and set aside the judgment and to discharge the petitioner or to resentence the petitioner or grant a new trial or correct the sentence or make other disposition as may be appropriate, if the person claims under penalty of perjury that:
(1) Scientific evidence not available at trial establishes the petitioner's actual innocence; or
(2) The scientific predicate for the claim could not have been previously discovered through the exercise of due diligence and the facts underlying the claim, if proven and viewed in light of the evidence as a whole, would be sufficient to establish by clear and convincing evidence that no reasonable fact-finder would find the petitioner guilty of the underlying offense.
(b) Nothing contained in this subchapter shall prevent the Supreme Court or the Court of Appeals, upon application by a party, from granting a stay of an appeal to allow an application to the trial court for an evidentiary hearing under this subchapter.
Source: Arkansas Code — historical release 78 (November 6, 2020) · 16-112-201
Stored review status: Historical 2020-11-06 source release; later amendments not reconciled; machine-extracted, not independently legally reviewed; source heading status: text_in_historical_source. The source passage cites 16-112-201. This identifies an authority to review, not proof of applicability.