Curtis v. State
2015 Ark. App. 167
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2015Background
- Curtis was convicted by a Grant County jury of delivery of methamphetamine and maintaining a drug premises, and sentenced as a habitual offender to 20 and 10 years, plus $10,000 in fines.
- On appeal, Curtis argues the trial court erred by denying directed-verdict motions and by admitting methamphetamine and test results due to an insufficient chain of custody.
- Thomas, a confidential informant, arranged a controlled buy; video captured the transaction but later stopped recording before completion.
- Keathley testified he provided $100 to Thomas, followed him, and received the meth in a small bag; the substance weighed about one gram and was sent to the crime lab.
- Williford, a forensic chemist, tested the substance, confirmed methamphetamine, and related the chain-of-custody data to the lab's electronic tracking system.
- The trial court admitted the evidence, the jury convicted, and the Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed, finding substantial evidence and no abuse of discretion on the chain of custody.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of delivery evidence | Curtis: video failed to show the drug; Thomas's testimony insufficient. | Curtis: evidence does not prove delivery beyond video gaps. | Substantial evidence supports delivery conviction. |
| Sufficiency of maintaining a drug premises evidence | Thomas testified Curtis lived in the trailer; premises used for keeping/selling drugs. | Insufficient link to ownership or control of the dwelling. | Substantial evidence supports maintaining a drug premises conviction. |
| Chain of custody admissibility | Evidence technician did not testify to all chain steps; concerns about bar-code/log sheets. | Court abused discretion by admitting possibly tampered evidence. | No abuse of discretion; evidence authentic and not shown to be tampered with. |
| Preservation of hearsay/Confrontation Clause objections | Hearsay and Confrontation Clause concerns due to lab-handling defendants' availability. | Objections preserved issues with chain of custody. | Not addressed on the merits due to lack of contemporaneous objection. |
| Directed verdict standard applicability | Deny verdicts when evidence fails to support delivery or premises charges. | N/A or reiteration of insufficiency arguments. | Court applied substantial-evidence standard and affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Tatum v. State, 380 S.W.3d 519 (Ark. 2011) (directed-verdict review uses substantial-evidence standard)
- Jones v. State, 105 S.W.3d 835 (Ark. App. 2003) (chain-of-custody requires reasonable authenticity)
- Duggar v. State, 427 S.W.3d 77 (Ark. App. 2013) (limitations on requiring every possible contact to account for chain)
- Freeman v. State, 423 S.W.3d 91 (Ark. App. 2010) (Confrontation Clause arguments related to chain of custody)
- Mathis v. State, 423 S.W.3d 91 (Ark. App. 2012) (preservation requirement for constitutional challenges)