Owens v. State
2011 Ark. App. 763
| Ark. Ct. App. | 2011Background
- Owens was convicted by a jury of possession of a Schedule II substance with intent to deliver, habitual offender, 101 years’ imprisonment.
- Detective Keller and BNTF monitored a suspected drug handoff to a confidential informant (Cl) at an E-Z Mart on Highway 71, leading to surveillance and a stop elsewhere after the Cl’s instructions.
- Howard, Owens’s girlfriend, initially claimed relevance to the glove containing methamphetamine but later implicated Owens via a letter and testimony.
- Exhibits 5 (drugs) and 8 (glove envelope) were admitted over objections about chain of custody.
- Owens challenged (1) lack of disclosure of the Cl, (2) suppression of the stop, (3) admission of Exhibits 5 and 8, and (4) sufficiency of corroboration, all of which the trial court and appellate court addressed.
- The majority affirmed the conviction; the dissent would reverse on corroboration and Cl-disclosure grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Must the Cl’s identity be disclosed? | Owens; Cl participation necessitates disclosure. | State; disclosure not required for possession with intent to deliver. | Cl identity not required; disclosure not essential to Owens’s defense. |
| Was the traffic stop supported by reasonable suspicion? | Owens; no reasonable suspicion without Cl involvement. | State; totality of circumstances supported reasonable suspicion. | Reasonable suspicion existed; stop lawful. |
| Were Exhibits 5 and 8 properly admitted given chain-of-custody issues? | Owens; chain-of-custody gaps render exhibits inadmissible. | State; minor uncertainties do not render admissible evidence inadmissible. | Not an abuse of discretion; admissible. |
| Was there sufficient corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony? | Owens; lack of independent corroboration requires reversal. | State; independent evidence corroborates the accomplice. | Sufficient corroboration; no directed-verdict error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Crisco v. State, 328 Ark. 388 (Ark. 1997) (chain of custody proof for interchangeable items requires substantial reliability)
- Dansby v. State, 338 Ark. 697 (Ark. 1999) (accomplice corroboration standards)
- Green v. State, 365 Ark. 478 (Ark. 2006) (accomplice corroboration may be substantial and circumstantial)
- Mhoon v. State, 369 Ark. 134 (Ark. 2007) (evidence of corroboration sufficient when independently establishes the crime)
- Wallace v. State, 55 Ark.App. 114 (Ark. App. 1996) (accomplice corroboration principles applied)