King v. State
2014 Ark. App. 81
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- On Nov. 29, 2012, police investigated reports of methamphetamine dealing at Joe King’s trailer; King met officers on the front porch holding a rifle.
- Officers detained King, removed the rifle, and Officer Fields frisked him, feeling a bulge; King produced a vial containing a small baggie with methamphetamine residue and admitted there were more drugs in the house.
- A search warrant produced 24 individually bagged packets of methamphetamine (8.49 g), digital scales, many small baggies, residue on a spoon, marijuana, and assorted pills.
- King was arrested, tried April 18, 2013, convicted of possession of drug paraphernalia and possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, and sentenced to consecutive 240-month terms (total 480 months).
- King appealed, arguing: (1) circuit court erred in denying a psychological evaluation; (2) denial of suppression of statements/evidence; and (3) denial of a directed verdict on intent-to-deliver charge.
Issues
| Issue | King’s Argument | State’s Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency / purpose to deliver (directed verdict) | Evidence only showed possession and no proof of sales; jury’s finding was speculation | Packaging, scales, numerous baggies, firearms, and other drugs showed intent to deliver (statutory factors) | Affirmed — substantial evidence supported intent-to-deliver (multiple statutory factors present) |
| Request for psychological evaluation / competency | King (through counsel) said he was depressed and had prior suicidal behavior; requested evaluation the day of trial | No formal notice invoking mental-disease defense or fitness issue; statements insufficient to show incompetence | Affirmed — denial not clearly erroneous; mere depression did not trigger mandatory evaluation absent timely/adequate notice or showing of incompetence |
| Motion to suppress statement/evidence (Miranda & frisk) | King argued he was effectively under arrest on porch and should have been Mirandized before questioning; items seized after custody should be suppressed | Officers lawfully detained and frisked after seeing King with a rifle; contraband was voluntarily produced during a valid pat-down; arrest and Miranda followed | Affirmed — frisk and subsequent disclosures were reasonable; suppression denial not clearly against preponderance of evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Heydenrich v. State, 379 S.W.3d 507 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (defines substantial-evidence standard)
- Jiminez v. State, 379 S.W.3d 762 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (when notice was given, court must suspend and order forensic evaluation)
- Flanagan v. State, 243 S.W.3d 866 (Ark. 2006) (Miranda custody standard — freedom curtailed to degree associated with formal arrest)
- Franklin v. State, 378 S.W.3d 296 (Ark. Ct. App. 2010) (objective test for frisks; officer may rely on specific articulable facts)
- Charland v. State, 380 S.W.3d 465 (Ark. Ct. App. 2011) (appellate court may rely on trial testimony to affirm suppression rulings)