Arkansas Rules of Evidence

Article I. General Provisions

Rule 101. Scope.

Rules text
These rules govern proceedings in the courts of this State to the extent and with the exceptions stated in Rule 1101. 

Rule 102. Purpose and construction.

Rules text
These rules shall be construed to secure fairness in administration, elimination of unjustifiable expense and delay, and promotion of growth and development of the law of evidence, to the end that the truth may be ascertained and proceedings justly determined. 

Rule 103. Rulings on evidence.

Rules text
(a)  Effect of Erroneous Ruling. Error may not be predicated upon a ruling which admits or excludes evidence unless a substantial right of the party is affected, and 
    (1)  Objection. In case the ruling is one admitting evidence, a timely objection or motion to strike appears of record, stating the specific ground of objection, if the specific ground was not apparent from the context; or 
    (2)  Offer of proof. In case the ruling is one excluding evidence, the substance of the evidence was made known to the court by offer or was apparent from the context within which questions were asked. 
    (b)  Record of Offer and Ruling. The court may add any other or further statement which shows the character of the evidence, the form in which it was offered, the objection made, and the ruling thereon. It may direct the making of an offer in question and answer form. 
    (c)  Hearing of Jury. In jury cases, proceedings shall be conducted, to the extent practicable, so as to prevent inadmissible evidence from being suggested to the jury by any means, such as making statements or offers of proof or asking questions in the hearing of the jury. 
    (d)  Errors Affecting Substantial Rights. Nothing in this rule precludes taking notice of errors affecting substantial rights although they were not brought to the attention of the court. 

Rule 104. Preliminary questions.

Rules text
(a)  Questions of Admissibility Generally. Preliminary questions concerning the qualification of a person to be a witness, the existence of a privilege, or the admissibility of evidence shall be determined by the court, subject to the provisions of subdivision (b). In making its determination it is not bound by the rules of evidence except those with respect to privileges. 
    (b)  Relevancy Conditioned on Fact. Whenever the relevancy of evidence depends upon the fulfillment of a condition of fact, the court shall admit it upon, or in the court's discretion subject to, the introduction of evidence sufficient to support a finding of the fulfillment of the condition. 
    (c)  Hearing of Jury. Hearings on the admissibility of confessions in criminal cases shall be conducted out of the hearing of the jury. Hearings on other preliminary matters in all cases, shall be so conducted whenever the interests of justice require or, in criminal cases, whenever an accused is a witness, if he so requests. 
    (d)  Testimony by Accused. The accused does not, by testifying upon a preliminary matter, subject himself to cross-examination as to other issues in the case. 
    (e)  Weight and Credibility. This rule does not limit the right of a party to introduce before the jury evidence relevant to weight or credibility. 

Rule 105. Limited admissibility.

Rules text
Whenever evidence which is admissible as to one [1] party or for one [1] purpose but not admissible as to another party or for another purpose is admitted, the court, upon request, shall restrict the evidence to its proper scope and instruct the jury accordingly. 

Rule 106. Remainder of or related writings or recorded statements.

Rules text
Whenever a writing or recorded statement or part thereof is introduced by a party, an adverse party may require him at that time to introduce any other part or any other writing or recorded statement which in fairness ought to be considered contemporaneously with it. 

Trial court did not abuse its discretion by allowing the state to introduce the transcript of police interviews with the victim, which included parts of the statement that were not introduced by the state, because the defense expressly referred to selective portions of the interviews while attempting to show that the investigator coaxed or cajoled the victim into giving incriminating testimony; thus, the entire transcript of the two interviews were properly admitted to refute a charge of improper influence and to provide context.