McKinney v. State
538 S.W.3d 216
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2018Background
- In Nov. 2015 two confidential informants, working with law enforcement, purchased methamphetamine from Kwasi McKinney at his residence; police executed a search warrant on Jan. 28, 2016 and found methamphetamine, paraphernalia, and a firearm.
- A Columbia County jury convicted McKinney of multiple offenses (delivery of methamphetamine; possession of methamphetamine; maintaining a drug premises; simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm; possession with intent to deliver; possession of a firearm by certain persons). One other conviction (endangering a minor) was later dismissed.
- McKinney received consecutive sentences aggregating 154 years; he appealed raising sufficiency, sentencing, and pretrial-hearing/suppression issues.
- At trial, officer testimony acknowledged other persons were present during the search and that latent-print testing was not performed; McKinney argued this undermined proof of his constructive possession.
- The circuit court denied several pretrial motions as untimely and refused a hearing; McKinney argued his suppression motions were timely under Ark. R. Crim. P. 16.2(b) and that a hearing was required for his statement-suppression motion.
- The appellate court affirmed convictions for delivery and simple possession, found the suppression motions were timely and that a hearing on the statement motion was required, and remanded for rulings/hearing on suppression (reversing some convictions if suppression warranted).
Issues
| Issue | McKinney's Argument | State's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for simultaneous possession of drugs and firearm and for possession of a firearm by certain persons | Proof failed to show constructive possession; other men were present and evidence could have been planted | McKinney failed to preserve a specific constructive-possession challenge at trial | Appellant's directed-verdict motions were too general; sufficiency claim not preserved; convictions affirmed |
| Consecutive sentencing | Consecutive sentences were improper (argued on appeal) | No contemporaneous objection in circuit court; issue forfeited | Sentencing challenge not preserved; consecutive sentences affirmed |
| Timeliness of suppression motions | Motions filed 47 days before trial, so timely under Ark. R. Crim. P. 16.2(b) | State argued omnibus/hearing rules rendered Rule 16.2 inapplicable | Record did not show an omnibus hearing; Rule 16.2 applied; motions were timely; circuit court abused discretion in finding untimely |
| Right to pretrial hearing on motion to suppress statement | A hearing was required; denial was erroneous | Error harmless because statement added little to other evidence | Hearing on motion to suppress statement is mandatory; denial was abuse of discretion and not harmless as to several convictions; remand for hearing and for ruling on search suppression; limited convictions (delivery, possession) affirmed as harmless error |
Key Cases Cited
- Gillard v. State, 372 Ark. 98 (directed-verdict motion must specify deficiencies to preserve sufficiency challenge)
- Conley v. State, 385 S.W.3d 875 (Arg. preserved only when trial motion matches appellate contention on constructive possession)
- Brown v. State, 326 Ark. 56 (must object in circuit court to preserve sentencing/consecutive-sentence claim)
- Mixon v. State, 330 Ark. 171 (same preservation rule for consecutive sentences)
- Rankin v. State, 329 Ark. 379 (mandatory hearing required on motion to suppress custodial statement)
- Schalski v. State, 322 Ark. 63 (illegally admitted evidence subject to constitutional harmless-error review)
- Fahy v. Connecticut, 375 U.S. 85 (harmless-error standard for federal constitutional errors)