Percefull v. State, 383 S.W.3d 905

Appellant Richard Percefull was convicted of manufacturing marijuana by a Hot Spring County jury and sentenced to four years and $5,000 fine.
Police observed marijuana growing on Percefull’s property after a confidential informant indicated pigs were being raised there and marijuana might be present.
A search warrant was obtained after patrol officers observed marijuana in plain view from the pig pen area.
Percefull moved to suppress the evidence, argued insufficiency of evidence, and challenged various trial rulings; the trial court denied these motions.
Percefull testified he was out of town, denied ownership of or responsibility for the marijuana, and claimed the informant planted the marijuana to cover burglaries.
The appellate court affirmed Percefull’s conviction and upheld the denials of suppression, directed-verdict, and jury-instruction challenges.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence (manufacturing).	Percefull contends the State failed to show possession, planting, or cultivation.	State argues constructive possession shown by location and ownership evidence.	Substantial evidence supports manufacturing conviction.
Motion to suppress (illegality of search).	Percefull argues Fourth Amendment suppression based on Dunn curtilage factors.	State argues no reasonable expectation of privacy in driveway/pig-pen area; plain view gives probable cause.	Court upheld denial of suppression.
Voir dire about gateway drug imagery.	Question linking marijuana to hard drugs was prejudicial.	Question explored jurors’ attitudes toward marijuana; within trial court discretion.	No abuse of discretion; voir dire allowed.
Admission of crime-lab submission sheet (discovery).	Violation of Rule 17.1 by not providing the submission form in discovery.	Admission harmless because lab report itself was admitted and unchallenged.	Admission held harmless; no reversible error.
Lesser-included offense instruction (possession vs. manufacturing).	Court should instruct on possession as a lesser-included offense.	No rational basis to give lesser-included instruction when defense denies manufacturing.	Refusal to give instruction affirmed.

Morgan v. State, 308 S.W.3d 147 (Ark. 2009) (constructive possession may be inferred from proximity and dominion over contraband)
McDonald v. State, 119 S.W.3d 41 (Ark. 2003) (dwellings and curtilage generally protected; driveways may lack reasonable privacy)
Lacy v. State, 377 S.W.3d 227 (Ark. 2010) (harmless-error standard in discovery violations)
Hutcheson v. State, 213 S.W.3d 25 (Ark. App. 2005) (voir dire discretion rests with trial court absent clear abuse)
Cook v. State, 73 S.W.3d 1 (Ark. App. 2002) (no reversible error in omitting lesser-included instruction without rational basis)