Eric Bennett v. State of Arkansas
2021 Ark. App. 351
Ark. Ct. App.2021Background:
- In April 2018, Eric Bennett pled guilty to commercial burglary and received a five-year suspended imposition of sentence (SIS) with a condition prohibiting criminal offenses punishable by incarceration.
- On September 11, 2019, Bennett was stopped driving an unregistered truck; officers found 15–20 jewelry boxes in the vehicle and arrested him on outstanding warrants.
- The owner of a local store (the Emporium), Stewart Sweeney, told police the jewelry boxes matched items stolen in a recent burglary; police returned some recovered items to Sweeney without requiring proof of ownership.
- Bennett’s wife testified the boxes belonged to her and had been purchased from the Emporium; she claimed receipts existed but they were lost and did not testify.
- The circuit court found the State’s witnesses (including Sweeney) credible, concluded Bennett violated his SIS by committing theft by receiving, revoked the SIS, and sentenced Bennett to ten years in the Arkansas Department of Correction.
- Bennett appealed, arguing insufficient evidence supported revocation; the court applied the preponderance standard and deferred to the circuit court’s credibility findings.
Issues:
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether evidence was sufficient to revoke Bennett's SIS for theft by receiving | Jewelry boxes found in Bennett’s truck were identified by the store owner as stolen, supporting possession of stolen property | Bennett lacked knowledge or reason to believe items were stolen; wife said boxes were hers and receipts were lost; owner produced no documentation | Affirmed — preponderance of evidence sufficed; court credited owner’s ID and deferred to circuit court credibility findings |
| Whether discrepancies in ownership identification precluded revocation | Inconsistencies go to credibility, not dispositive proof; trier of fact may resolve conflicts | Discrepancies (no receipts, owner did not produce proof) undermine State’s case | Affirmed — variances affect weight/credibility; circuit court resolved conflicts in favor of State |
Key Cases Cited
- Von Holt v. State, 524 S.W.3d 19 (Ark. App. 2017) (State must prove violation to revoke SIS)
- Daniels v. State, 588 S.W.3d 116 (Ark. App. 2019) (revocation requires proof by preponderance; less than criminal conviction suffices)
- Hazelwood v. State, 577 S.W.3d 39 (Ark. App. 2019) (appellate courts defer to circuit court credibility determinations)
- Porter v. State, 145 S.W.3d 376 (Ark. 2004) (discrepancies in proof go to weight and credibility)
- Jones v. State, 388 S.W.3d 503 (Ark. App. 2012) (trier of fact resolves contradictions and determines witness credibility)
- Collins v. State, 446 S.W.3d 199 (Ark. App. 2014) (court will not disturb credibility-based factual findings on appeal)
- Ferry v. State, 617 S.W.3d 295 (Ark. App. 2021) (same: appellate deference to circuit court credibility conclusions)