Wells v. State
2017 Ark. App. 174
Ark. Ct. App.2017Background
- Willie Wells was observed on store video concealing merchandise at a Dollar General; manager reported theft and later signed an affidavit. Wells was detained by police at his vehicle and placed under arrest for shoplifting.
- During a search incident to arrest, Patrolman Clark found a folded paper containing a white granular substance in Wells’s pocket; Clark’s on-scene scale read .01 grams.
- The Arkansas State Crime Lab tested the substance and identified .0577 grams of cocaine; lab protocol treated amounts over .01 grams as a usable amount.
- Wells moved to suppress the physical evidence and his statements; the circuit court denied both motions. At trial a jury convicted him of possession of less than two grams of cocaine, acquitted him of paraphernalia, and, as a habitual offender, sentenced him to nine years and a $2,500 fine.
- On appeal Wells challenged (1) sufficiency of the evidence (usable amount), (2) denial of suppression of evidence as fruit of an unlawful arrest, (3) suppression of his statements (voluntariness/Miranda/material-witness rule), and (4) the trial court’s refusal to give an alternative-sentencing instruction; the Court of Appeals affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence that Wells possessed a usable amount of cocaine | The State did not prove a usable amount because on-scene weight was .01g and conflict with lab weight | Lab chemist testified .0577g and described calibrated procedures; jury entitled to credit lab over patrolman | Conviction affirmed; sufficient evidence of a usable amount (>= .01g) exists |
| Validity of arrest/detention and suppression of seized evidence | Arrest was invalid for shoplifting; seizure of cocaine was fruit of poisonous tree | Officer had reasonable suspicion under Rule 3.1, manager’s observation created statutory shoplifting presumption, affidavit was provided contemporaneously | Denial of suppression affirmed; stop and arrest were proper under totality of circumstances |
| Suppression of statements (spontaneous and post-Miranda) | Statements inadmissible; State failed to call all material witnesses to prove voluntariness | Initial statement was spontaneous (admissible pre-Miranda); post-Miranda statement followed warnings and was not alleged coerced so material-witness rule inapplicable | Statements admissible; spontaneous statement admissible and post-Miranda confession voluntary and properly admitted |
| Denial of jury instruction on alternative sentencing | Court should have allowed jury to consider recommending probation under §16-97-101(4) | Trial court has discretion and considered defendant’s extensive felony history; denying instruction was a reasoned exercise of discretion | Denial not an abuse of discretion; court permissibly declined after weighing history |
Key Cases Cited
- Jones v. State, 357 Ark. 545, 182 S.W.3d 485 (standard for sufficiency review)
- Haynes v. State, 346 Ark. 388, 58 S.W.3d 336 (definition of substantial evidence)
- Williams v. State, 346 Ark. 304, 57 S.W.3d 706 (viewing evidence in light most favorable to State)
- Harbison v. State, 302 Ark. 315, 790 S.W.2d 146 (usable-amount criterion for possession convictions)
- Porter v. State, 99 Ark. App. 137, 257 S.W.3d 919 (reversal where only unweighable residue existed)
- Terrell v. State, 35 Ark. App. 185, 818 S.W.2d 579 (affirmance where .01g deemed usable by experts)
- Nottingham v. State, 29 Ark. App. 95, 778 S.W.2d 629 (Rule 3.1 stop upheld where officer corroborated informant)
- Anderson v. State, 2011 Ark. 461, 385 S.W.3d 214 (spontaneous statements admissible without Miranda)
- Smith v. State, 254 Ark. 538, 494 S.W.2d 489 (material-witness rule requiring State to produce all witnesses when coercion is alleged)