Cave v. State
2017 Ark. App. 212
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2017Background
- Edward Lamar Cave was convicted by a Grant County jury of delivery of methamphetamine, delivery of oxycodone, and maintaining a drug premises following a controlled buy.
- Confidential informant Suzen Cooper contacted Group Six (multicounty drug task force) after observing Cave and arranging a buy for 0.4490 g methamphetamine and six oxycodone tablets for $110 total.
- Cooper was searched and provided with buy money by Agent Eddie Keathley; the controlled transaction lasted about 40 seconds to a minute in front of Cave’s residence.
- Cooper testified she paid Cave for the meth first and received the meth; a truck later arrived, money for pills was passed to a man in the truck, and Cave returned and handed Cooper pills.
- Keathley observed parts of the transaction (saw Cooper talk to Cave, saw Cave walk to and from the truck) but briefly lost visual of the exact hand-to-hand exchanges; Cooper’s recovered items were submitted and later identified as meth and oxycodone.
- Cave moved for directed verdicts arguing insufficient evidence (faulting that the officer did not see the deliveries and attacking Cooper’s credibility due to her criminal history); the trial court denied the motions and jury convicted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for delivery of methamphetamine | State: Cooper’s testimony plus controlled-buy procedures show Cave delivered meth | Cave: Officer did not observe the actual hand-to-hand transfer; Cooper not credible | Affirmed — Cooper’s testimony alone sufficient; jury may credit her and procedures corroborated reliability |
| Sufficiency of evidence for delivery of oxycodone | State: same controlled-buy proof supports oxycodone delivery | Cave: same challenge to observation and informant credibility | Affirmed — testimony and circumstances support conviction |
| Sufficiency for maintaining a drug premises | State: buy occurred at Cave’s residence and he resided there; drugs distributed from premises | Cave: attacks informant credibility; disputes that premises were used for distribution | Affirmed — testimony established Cave lived at residence and drugs were distributed there |
| Credibility of confidential informant as sole witness | State: informant was searched, productive for task force, had no felony convictions, jury weighed credibility | Cave: Cooper’s criminal history undermines reliability; need corroboration | Rejected — court reiterates no corroboration requirement absent accomplice evidence; credibility for jury to decide |
Key Cases Cited
- Childers v. State, 498 S.W.3d 742 (Ark. App. 2016) (informant testimony alone can support delivery conviction where informant was searched and jury credited testimony)
- Talley v. State, 849 S.W.2d 493 (Ark. 1993) (corroboration of informant testimony not required absent evidence that informant was an accomplice)
- Brunson v. State, 873 S.W.2d 562 (Ark. App. 1994) (confidential informant’s purchase testimony sufficient when not inherently unbelievable)
- Curtis v. State, 457 S.W.3d 700 (Ark. App. 2015) (maintaining a drug premises supported where informant testified appellant lived in trailer and sold drugs from it)
- Reynolds v. State, 492 S.W.3d 491 (Ark. 2016) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of the evidence; appellate court views evidence in light most favorable to State)