Conley v. State
2011 Ark. App. 597
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Conley appeals his convictions for delivery of a controlled substance (crack cocaine), possession of a controlled substance (marijuana), and possession of drug paraphernalia; the jury acquitted him of possession with intent to deliver marijuana.
- An undercover drug task force conducted a controlled buy at a park on Sept. 15, 2009; detectives identified and recorded Conley (voice recognized by one detective; car later linked to Conley).
- The transaction involved three rocks of cocaine (~1 gram); officers followed Conley to his residence and later found marijuana and digital scales during a home search.
- Forensic testing showed 0.5818 g of cocaine and 32.5 g of marijuana; Conley moved for a directed verdict, which the trial court denied.
- During sentencing, the State introduced habitual-offender evidence; witnesses testified about Conley’s drug-dealing history; sentences totaled 60 years (cocaine), 6 years (marijuana), and 30 years (paraphernalia).
- Conley timely appealed, challenging insufficiency of the evidence, possession theories, and prosecutorial misconduct (and failure to issue a curative instruction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence for delivery of cocaine | Conley argues the State failed to prove delivery beyond a reasonable doubt | Conley argues the evidence was inaccurate/inconsistent and unreliable | Denied; insufficient preservation—directed verdict too general to preserve sufficiency issue |
| Constructive possession of marijuana | State failed to prove Conley possessed marijuana in his joint residence | Conley contends lack of linking factors and possible third-party involvement | Denied; argument not preserved due to general directed-verdict motion |
| Possession of digital scales (paraphernalia) | State met burden to prove possession of paraphernalia | No evidence Conley controlled/scaled used for drugs; insufficient specificity | Denied; general motion failed to preserve constructive-possession challenge |
| Prosecutorial misconduct during sentencing and curative instruction | Prosecutor’s questioning implied drug-dealer status; request for curative instruction | Objection not clearly ruled on; grounds not preserved; grounds broadened on appeal | Affirmed; issues barred for failure to obtain a ruling and for not preserving grounds |
Key Cases Cited
- Pratt v. State, 359 Ark. 16, 194 S.W.3d 183 (Ark. 2004) (proper preservation requires a specific directed verdict challenge)
- Taylor v. State, 2010 Ark. 372, 372 S.W.3d 769 (Ark. 2010) (preservation of sufficiency challenges on appeal)
- Tryon v. State, 871 Ark. 25, 263 S.W.3d 475 (Ark. 2007) (sufficiency review standard; substantial evidence)
- Ellison v. State, 354 Ark. 340, 123 S.W.3d 874 (Ark. 2003) (objection preservation and course of trial rulings)