Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation and good law / bad law checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Denton v. State
Citations: 290 Ark. 24; 716 S.W.2d 198; 1986 Ark. LEXIS 2066Docket: CR 86-62
Court: Supreme Court of Arkansas; September 22, 1986; Arkansas; State Supreme Court
David Newbern, Justice, presided over an appeal involving a defendant convicted as an habitual offender on three charges: possession of amphetamine or methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia, and felon in possession of a firearm. The sentences imposed were 40 years for the first charge, 25 years for the second, and 12 years for the third, with the first two running concurrently and the last consecutively. The appellant challenged the sufficiency of evidence for his convictions. The appellee acknowledged a lack of substantial evidence for the drug trafficking charge, leading to a modification of the 40-year sentence to a 10-year sentence for simple possession, considering the defendant's ten prior felony convictions. The convictions for drug paraphernalia and felon in possession of a firearm were upheld, along with the modified possession charge. The evidence against the appellant stemmed from police surveillance of drug transactions at his residence, where a police informant witnessed purchases of crystal methamphetamine. Upon obtaining a search warrant, police found various items, including drug paraphernalia and firearms, in what was identified as the master bedroom of the house, which was shared by the appellant, his wife, and other family members. The appellant argued that he could not be found in possession of the items since they were located in a shared space. Citing Watson v. State, he contended that possession in a legal context differs from the broad interpretation of ownership associated with one's home. The court noted that, unlike in Osborne v. State, where possession was reversed due to lack of clarity on ownership of the bedroom, the evidence in this case indicated a stronger connection between the appellant and the contraband found in the master bedroom, thus supporting the convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia and firearms. In Cary v. State, 259 Ark. 510 (1976), the court established that joint occupancy, combined with a linking factor to the narcotics, is sufficient for establishing connection to contraband. The pivotal question was whether evidence other than the appellant's joint occupancy linked him to the drugs found in the bedroom. Surveillance prior to the search involved police informant Larry White, who recorded conversations with suspect Mincey, including inquiries about the purpose of drug acquisition. Officer Barnett’s testimony about these conversations was admitted, following jury instructions under AMCI 201, which required proof of a conspiracy for statements to be considered against the appellant. No appeal was raised against the admissibility of Barnett’s testimony, which was deemed sufficient to connect the appellant to the contraband. Regarding intent to deliver, the appellee acknowledged that evidence was inadequate to prove possession with intent, relying on Berry v. State, 263 Ark. 446 (1978), where possession of a minimal trace of heroin did not demonstrate intent to sell. Following this precedent, the court reduced the appellant's sentence for possession of a schedule II substance from 40 years to 10 years, to run concurrently with a 25-year sentence for possession of drug paraphernalia. A separate 12-year sentence for being a felon in possession of a firearm was ordered to be served consecutively. The court affirmed the judgment as modified and remanded the case for the appropriate order.