To Amend The Conditions Under Which The Offense Of Negligent Homicide Is Committed; And To Repeal The Ability Of A Prosecuting Attorney Or Defendant To Subpoena Certain Individuals Before A Hearing Or Trial.
Summary
HB1948 would expand Arkansas’s negligent homicide statute to cover additional circumstances when a death results from operating a vehicle, aircraft, or watercraft. In addition to the existing grounds of intoxication and a blood alcohol concentration of 0.08 or more, the bill adds negligent homicide liability for passing a stopped school bus, operating while fatigued, and operating a vehicle when any amount of certain controlled substances is present in the person’s body as shown by chemical testing. The bill also defines “controlled substance” for this purpose to mean fentanyl, methamphetamine, heroin, or cocaine.
The bill further revises the evidentiary rules tied to chemical-test cases by narrowing the ability of the prosecuting attorney or defendant to subpoena certain individuals before a hearing or trial. Under the proposed change, a person charged under the DWI-related statute would still have the right to cross-examine or call the calibrator, operator, or a representative of the testing office, but the bill removes the separate subpoena procedure that currently allows either side to compel those witnesses to appear with the relevant records at least ten days before the proceeding.
Impact
HB1948 would amend Arkansas Code § 5-10-105 to broaden the conduct that can support a negligent homicide charge and would add a specific list of drugs that trigger liability when present in the operator’s body. It would also amend § 5-65-206(d)(3) to eliminate the existing statutory subpoena mechanism for certain chemical-test witnesses in alcohol-related cases, changing how those witnesses and records may be brought into court. The bill primarily affects criminal defendants, prosecutors, law enforcement testing procedures, and courts handling negligent homicide and related chemical-test evidence.
Sentiment
The bill appears to be framed as a public-safety measure focused on impaired and unsafe driving, especially involving drugs and school-bus violations. Even without recorded committee testimony or votes, the caption and text suggest a law-and-order approach aimed at strengthening accountability in fatal vehicle incidents. Because the available record contains no votes or hearing transcript, there is no documented opposition or support to gauge beyond the bill’s stated enforcement-oriented purpose.
Contention
The most likely points of contention are the expansion of negligent homicide liability to include fatigue and the presence of any amount of certain controlled substances, which could raise questions about proof, causation, and whether the statute reaches conduct beyond traditional intoxication. Another likely issue is the evidentiary change in Section 3, which removes a subpoena right that can be important for defendants and prosecutors seeking to challenge or support chemical-test results. Those changes could draw concern from defense attorneys and civil-liberties advocates, while supporters would likely emphasize roadway safety and stronger criminal enforcement.