Singleton v. State
381 S.W.3d 874
Ark. Ct. App.2011Background
- Singleton was convicted by a jury of possession with intent to deliver cocaine, possession with intent to deliver methamphetamine, possession with intent to deliver marijuana, maintaining a drug premise, and misdemeanor tampering with physical evidence; aggregate sentence was 40 years.
- SWAT conducted a July 15, 2009 search at 4305 Maryland Street; Singleton was found on the bathroom floor and secured.
- Detectives recovered drugs and drug paraphernalia throughout the house, including 2.2957 g cocaine base, eight meth pills totaling 2.5007 g, marijuana, and surveillance equipment.
- Evidence showed Singleton’s address listed as 4305 Maryland on bond and interviews; his wife testified he did not reside there; Singleton testified the house belonged to his son and that he only frequented it.
- The State emphasized packaging, quantities, and the presumption that possession of more than one gram of cocaine (and meth pills) supports intent to deliver; defense argued insufficient evidence of intent and usable amount for meth.
- The trial court denied directed verdict motions; the jury found Singleton guilty on all charged offenses.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of cocaine-with-intent-to-deliver evidence | Cocaine over 2 g triggers presumption of intent to deliver; other elements need not be shown. | No scales, money, or packaging; but evidence insufficient to prove intent to deliver. | Presumption and weight support intent to deliver |
| Sufficiency of methamphetamine-with-intent-to-deliver evidence | Eight meth pills totaling 2.5007 g constitute a usable amount triggering presumption of intent to deliver. | Defendant possessed only trace amounts; pills insufficient to show usable quantity. | Measurable amount found; evidence supports intent to deliver |
| Maintaining a drug premise | Proved residence at 4305 Maryland was used for obtaining/using drugs; maintaining premise established by occupancy and control. | No proof Singleton resided or owned 4305 Maryland; conflicting evidence; jury resolved conflicts. | Sufficient evidence of maintaining drug premises |
| Tampering with physical evidence | Singleton threw drugs into the toilet to impair prosecutorial use; even if not successful, misdemeanor tampering was shown. | No actual alteration or destruction shown; flushing attempt contested; charged only with misdemeanor tampering. | Sufficient evidence of tampering as to misdemeanor |
Key Cases Cited
- Harbison v. State, 302 Ark. 315 (1990) (trace amounts may negate possession under certain circumstances)
- Ficklin v. State, 104 Ark. App. 133, 289 S.W.3d 481 (2008) (pills containing methamphetamine can be a usable amount for intent analysis)
- Jones v. State, 357 Ark. 545, 182 S.W.3d 485 (2004) (measurable amount includes adulterants; supports presumptions on intent)
- Piercefield v. State, 316 Ark. 128, 871 S.W.2d 348 (1994) (measurable amount includes purities/adulterants for intent in drug cases)
- Stephens, United States v. Stephens, 23 F.3d 553 (D.C. Cir. 1994) (distinguishes presumption applicability in possession cases)
- Morris v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 12 (Ark. App. 2011) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence; weigh credibility on appeal)