480 S.W.3d 867
Ark. Ct. App.2016Background
- Derrick D. Morgan worked in a Warner Logistics warehouse and was assigned to load 22 pallets of dog food onto a truck on December 19, 2013.
- Thirty pallets (eight extra pallets worth $6,443.92 wholesale) were loaded; truck driver James Williams testified Morgan arranged an additional stop and directed Williams to follow a black Tahoe driven by Marcello Binns to a Pine Bluff house where the extra pallets were unloaded.
- Williams testified he did not consent to transporting stolen dog food and did not know the load was unauthorized; Morgan left the area before police arrived and did not return to work.
- Morgan denied loading the extra pallets and denied being in Pine Bluff; a Dumas officer testified Morgan had told him he loaded the truck.
- Morgan was convicted by a jury of theft (Class D felony) and unauthorized use of another's property to facilitate a crime (Class B felony); he appealed only the unauthorized-use conviction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether conviction for unauthorized use may rest on accomplice testimony without corroboration | State: Evidence (Williams’ testimony) sufficiently connected Morgan to unauthorized use | Morgan: Williams was an accomplice; accomplice testimony requires corroboration under Ark. Code § 16-89-111(e)(1)(A) | Not preserved on appeal; Morgan failed to raise accomplice argument at trial for this offense, so appellate court did not reach sufficiency on that ground |
| Whether Morgan knew the truck was being used unlawfully / received pecuniary benefit | State: Witness testimony showed Morgan directed unloading and facilitated diversion of goods | Morgan: Argued no proof he knew the truck was used unlawfully or that he obtained pecuniary gain | Trial-court sufficiency argument raised below (lack of knowledge/benefit) was considered; appeal limited by preservation rules |
| Whether Ark. Code § 5-74-105 applies only to gang-related activity | Morgan: Statute is located in the Criminal Gang Act and thus should require gang activity | State: Statute’s plain language governs; it does not require gang activity as an element | Court: Rejected Morgan’s argument, following precedent that the statute does not require gang activity |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Zawodniak, 329 Ark. 179 (1997) (statute within Criminal Gang Act need not require gang activity)
- McGhee v. State, 330 Ark. 38 (1997) (same holding regarding statutory interpretation)
- Carter v. State, 365 Ark. 224 (2006) (overruled other grounds; cited for limits on reading elements into statutes)
Affirmed.