(a) (1) The driver of any vehicle involved in an accident resulting in injury to or death of any person shall immediately stop the vehicle at the scene of the accident, or as close thereto as possible, but shall then immediately return to and in every event shall remain at the scene of the accident until he has fulfilled the requirements of § 27-53-103.
(2) Every such stop shall be made without obstructing traffic more than is necessary.
(3) An accident of this nature shall include all accidents which occur upon the streets or highways, upon the parking area of private business establishments, or elsewhere throughout the state.
(b) (1) Any person failing to comply with subsection (a) of this section or with § 27-53-103 shall, upon conviction, be deemed guilty of a Class D felony.
(2) The commissioner shall revoke the driver's license or commercial driver's license of the person so convicted.
History. Acts 1937, No. 300, § 36; Pope's Dig., § 6694; Acts 1981, No. 918, § 1; A.S.A. 1947, § 75-901; Acts 1987, No. 88, § 1; 1995, No. 659, § 4.
Case Notes
Accomplices.
Failure to Comply.
Instructions.
Manslaughter.
No accomplice criminal responsibility results from supplying an intoxicant to one allegedly responsible as a principal for violations of §§ 5-10-104(a)(1), 5-13-204(a), or subsection (a)(1) of this section. Fight v. State, 314 Ark. 438, 863 S.W.2d 800 (1993).
Evidence supported the finding of jury that defendant did not comply with this section and § 27-53-103 where evidence was to the effect that defendant hurriedly left scene of accident before injured person was removed and after being requested not to do so even though this identity was known and others were rendering aid. Barnhill v. State, 247 Ark. 28, 444 S.W.2d 97 (1969).
Evidence was sufficient to sustain a failure to stop and render aid conviction where it supported an inference that defendant left the scene of an automobile accident for the express purpose of making it more difficult to ascertain and prove his identity and state of intoxication at the time of the accident. Akram v. State, - Ark. App. -, - S.W.3d -, 2006 Ark. App. LEXIS 755 (Nov. 15, 2006).
A refusal to instruct on this section does not amount to prejudicial error where the failure to comply with it bears no proximate relation to the cause of the collision. Carter v. Montgomery, 226 Ark. 989, 296 S.W.2d 442 (Ark. 1956).
Refusal to give instruction setting out subsection (a) of this section was not prejudicial error where proof showed that the young driver stopped and returned to the scene as soon as he realized what had happened and there was no showing that he failed to satisfy the requirements of § 27-53-103. Carter v. Montgomery, 226 Ark. 989, 296 S.W.2d 442 (Ark. 1956).
Defendant was not entitled to have his proffered instruction given to the jury based on the argument that due process required the State to prove that he knew the victim had been injured and that he purposely left the scene knowing that she had been injured as this section did not contain an element regarding defendant's knowledge of a victim's injuries. Stivers v. State, 354 Ark. 140, 118 S.W.3d 558 (2003).
Evidence held sufficient to support verdict and judgment for manslaughter. Kirkendall v. State, 265 Ark. 853, 581 S.W.2d 341 (1979); Booth v. State, 26 Ark. App. 115, 761 S.W.2d 607, 82 A.L.R.4th 221 (1988), cert. denied, 490 U.S. 1047, 109 S. Ct. 1956 (1989).
Cited: Benson v. State, 212 Ark. 905, 208 S.W.2d 767 (1948); Tackett v. State, 298 Ark. 20, 766 S.W.2d 410 (1989).