Duggar v. State
2013 Ark. App. 135
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2013Background
- Terrance Duggar was convicted of a lesser-included offense: possessing at least four ounces but less than ten pounds of marijuana (Class D felony) and sentenced to 72 months' imprisonment plus a $10,000 fine; acquitted on all other charges.
- State's Exhibit No. 4 (six bags of marijuana totaling about 5.218 pounds) supported the conviction; Exhibits 1 and 7 did not meet the four-ounce minimum.
- Evidence showed Duggar was present at the Birchwood Drive house during the raid, with mail and address connections suggesting residence there.
- The trial addressed constructive possession, requiring the State to show Duggar exercised care, control, and management over the contraband; circumstantial evidence was at issue.
- Duggar challenged the admissibility of Exhibit No. 4, arguing a broken chain of custody and potential tampering; the circuit court admitted the exhibit.
- On appeal, the court upheld both the sufficiency of the evidence for constructive possession and the chain-of-custody ruling, affirming the conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession | State argued proximity, access, and circumstantial links supported possession. | Duggar contended the State failed to tie him to the marijuana via legally sufficient links. | Sufficient evidence supported constructive possession. |
| chain of custody of Exhibit No. 4 | State maintained exhibit chain was adequately established and tampering unlikely. | Duggar claimed minor discrepancies and potential tampering broke the chain. | No meaningful break in chain of custody; exhibit properly admitted. |
Key Cases Cited
- Boldin v. State, 373 Ark. 295 (Ark. 2008) (sufficiency standard and standard of review for evidence-based challenges)
- McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257 (Ark. 2005) (constructive possession may be proven by circumstantial evidence)
- Crisco v. State, 328 Ark. 388 (Ark. 1997) (requires more than tracing the envelope when there is a marked difference)
- Green v. State, 365 Ark. 478 (Ark. 2006) (minor chain-of-custody flaws are not automatic inadmissibility)
- Hawkins v. State, 81 Ark. App. 479 (Ark. App. 2003) (absence of exhaustive tampering proof does not bar admission)
- Butler v. State, 303 Ark. 380 (Ark. 1990) (evidence integrity and custody safeguards when weighing contraband)
- Tatum v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 83 (Ark. App. 2011) (police testimony on custody not essential to chain-of-custody proof)
- Loggins v. State, 2010 Ark. 414 (Ark. 2010) (jury credibility and circumstantial evidence issues are for the jury)