Hubbard v. State
513 S.W.3d 289
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- On March 21, 2014, multiple homes in the Texarkana area were burglarized; the Jack Cullen Drive (Arkansas) home was broken into and over $25,000 in jewelry and two guns were taken.
- Police arrested Lawrence Hubbard after a homeowner disturbed three suspects; two others (Willie Powell and Marcus Levine) initially escaped.
- Hubbard gave a post-arrest statement admitting three Texas burglaries that morning (6 Ridge Row Cir., 7311 Schilling Cir., 6602 North Park Rd.) but denied involvement in the Jack Cullen Drive burglary.
- Stephanie Parker, who pled guilty in connection with the Jack Cullen burglary and agreed to testify, said she drove Hubbard, Powell, and Levine to multiple homes that morning; she identified Hubbard as a participant.
- The State charged Hubbard with residential burglary and theft (Arkansas) and possession-of-a-firearm counts (later severed); a jury convicted him of residential burglary and theft.
- Hubbard appealed, challenging (1) sufficiency of the evidence (arguing lack of proof that his control of the Johnsons’ property was unauthorized) and (2) the trial court’s admission under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) of evidence about the three Texas burglaries to which he had admitted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for theft/residential burglary | State: victim testimony and surrounding facts permit inference of unauthorized taking | Hubbard: no direct testimony that he (or accomplices) lacked permission to take Johnsons’ property | Affirmed — viewed in State's favor, circumstantial evidence (ransacked home, broken glass, missing jewelry/chest) supported unauthorized control and theft, supporting burglary conviction |
| Admissibility under Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) — independent relevance | State: prior Texas burglaries corroborate Parker’s ID testimony and show common plan/method, so independently relevant (identity, intent, plan) | Hubbard: identity not at issue; Parker already testified he participated in Jack Cullen burglary | Affirmed — identity was contested (Hubbard denied presence); Texas offenses were independently relevant and highly similar to Arkansas burglary, so admission was not an abuse of discretion |
| Rule 404(b) similarity/probative value vs. prejudice | State: Texas offenses shared time frame, method, and participants—probative for identity/plan | Hubbard: prior acts were improper propensity evidence and unduly prejudicial (Rule 403) | Affirmed as to 404(b) similarity and probative value; Rule 403 objection not preserved (no ruling obtained) |
| Need for corroboration of accomplice testimony | State: prior-admission evidence can corroborate accomplice’s testimony | Hubbard: implied challenge to relying on accomplice without independent corroboration | Court: 404(b) evidence served as independent corroboration of Parker’s testimony identifying Hubbard |
Key Cases Cited
- Navarro v. State, 371 Ark. 179, 264 S.W.3d 530 (standard for sufficiency review and circumstantial evidence)
- Cluck v. State, 365 Ark. 166, 226 S.W.3d 780 (preservation of issues and review standards)
- Jarrett v. State, 265 Ark. 662, 580 S.W.2d 460 (drawing inferences of unauthorized control from surrounding conduct)
- Vance v. State, 2011 Ark. 243, 383 S.W.3d 325 (Rule 404(b) independent relevance test and similarity/probative-value guidance)
- Osburn v. State, 2009 Ark. 390, 326 S.W.3d 771 (limitations on using prior bad acts solely to show propensity)