McCastle v. State
2012 Ark. App. 162
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2012Background
- McCastle was convicted in an Arkansas County jury trial of possession of cocaine with intent to deliver and sentenced to 17 years; judgment/commitment orders were remanded twice to correct problems.
- At trial, Demarco Hall testified he rode in a truck driven by McCastle; police stopped the truck and Hall fled; McCastle remained in the truck.
- Captain Mannis testified he inventoryed the scene after Hall’s arrest, learned there were hydrocodone pills and cocaine in the truck, and obtained photographs and an inventory listing the seized items.
- The State Crime Laboratory report stated the seized items were naproxen, cocaine nicotinamide, and marijuana; discrepancies existed between inventory, submission forms, and lab testing.
- McCastle argued the crime-lab report was inadmissible due to authenticity and chain-of-custody concerns; the court admitted the report over objection.
- On appeal, McCastle challenged sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession and the admissibility of the crime-lab report; the court affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether there was sufficient evidence of constructive possession | McCastle argues no linking factors prove possession | McCastle relies on Kilpatrick factors not all met | Sufficient evidence of constructive possession exists |
| Whether linking factors supported constructive possession under Kilpatrick | Cocaine found near driver; driver claims no ownership | Ownership of vehicle not required; dominion/control shown by proximity | Linking factors supported dominion and control over drugs |
| Whether admission of the crime-lab report was proper despite discrepancies | Report unreliable due to inconsistent descriptions | Minor discrepancies do not require exclusion; credibility for the trial court | Trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting the report |
| Standard of review applied to evidentiary rulings | Abuse-of-discretion review should favor defendant | Court properly weighed credibility; error not shown | Abuse-of-discretion standard applied; no reversible error |
Key Cases Cited
- Kilpatrick v. State, 322 Ark. 728 (1995) (linking factors for constructive possession can be satisfied without all factors present)
- Dodson v. State, 341 Ark. 41 (2000) (possession can be proven by constructive possession)
- Jester v. State, 367 Ark. 249 (2006) (sufficiency review standard for evidence merits use of substantial-evidence standard)
- Miller v. State, 68 Ark.App. 332 (1999) (no requirement that every linking factor be present)
- McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257 (2005) (driver status supports dominion and control over contraband)