Title: Springston v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Justin SPRINGSTON v. STATE of Arkansas

95-1366                                            ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
               Opinion delivered January 27, 1997


1.   Evidence -- lay testimony may provide substantial evidence of controlled
     substance. -- Lay testimony may provide substantial evidence of
     the identity of a controlled substance, even in the absence of
     expert chemical analysis.

2.   Evidence -- substantial evidence supported juvenile adjudication for
     possession of marijuana. -- Where a drug-sniffing dog stopped at
     appellant's school locker; appellant admitted that the
     contraband substance that was found was his; and an expert
     chemical analysis identified the substance as marijuana by
     visual examination and chemical testing but without
     confirmation of the presence of Tetrahydrocannabinol, the
     supreme court held that, given the findings of the chemist,
     along with the lay testimony, there was substantial evidence
     to support the juvenile adjudication for possession of
     marijuana.


     Appeal from Washington Chancery Court, Juvenile Division;
Charles N. Williams, Judge; affirmed.
     Zurborg & Spaulding, P.A., by: Brian L. Spaulding, for
appellant.
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  J. Brent Standridge, Asst.
Att'y Gen., for appellee.

     W.H. "Dub" Arnold, Chief Justice.
     Justin Springston was charged in a delinquency petition with
possession of marijuana.  He moved to dismiss the charge, arguing
that the State had failed to prove that the substance he possessed
contained Tetrahydrocannabinol, otherwise known as THC.  The judge
denied the motion to dismiss and found the allegations in the
juvenile petition to be true.  Springston was sentenced to six
months' probation, five days in juvenile detention (suspended),
community service, and he had his driver's license suspended for
one year.  We affirm.
     On October 27, 1994, the State filed its petition in
Washington County Chancery Court.  The proof at trial consisted of
the testimony of Fayetteville High School Assistant Principal Lee
Haight and the testimony of Vice-Principal David Hunt.  Mr. Haight
testified that on October 12, 1994, the Fayetteville Police
Department brought drug-sniffing dogs into the school for a routine
check of student lockers.  One of the dogs stopped at Justin
Springston's locker.  The locker was opened and a bag containing a
"green, leafy substance" was found.  A pipe was also found.  Vice-
Principal Hunt testified that when Springston was called to the
office and confronted, he admitted that the substance was his.
     At the close of the testimonial evidence, the State and the
defense presented a stipulated exhibit that had been prepared by a
chemist, Dr. Howick.  The stipulation contained Dr. Howick's
findings regarding his testing of the substance found in
Springston's locker.  It read, in pertinent part, as follows:


     1. Visual inspection of test indicated the substance
     characterists [sic] were consistent with marihauna [sic];

     2. Chemical test yeilded [sic] results consistent with
     the presence of marihauna [sic];

     3. Test results, when taken together, confirmed to the
     examiner the presence of marihauna [sic];

     4. The presence or absence of THC could not be confirmed
     by the tests or by the examiner.

     It is not clear from the record whether a test was actually
administered for the purpose of determining the presence of THC; as
best we can tell, no such test was performed.  
     Upon introduction of the stipulated exhibit, the State rested
its case.  Springston moved to dismiss on the basis that the State
had not proven the presence of THC.  The trial court ruled that no
such proof was necessary.  Springston was adjudicated a delinquent
and sentenced.  This appeal followed.       
     The controversy on appeal arises from the definition of
marijuana contained in Ark. Code Ann.  5-64-101(n) (Repl. 1993): 

     "Marijuana" means all parts and any variety and/or
     species of the plant Cannabis that contains THC
     (Tetrahydrocannabinol) whether growing or not; the seeds
     thereof; the resin extracted from any part of the plant;
     and every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative,
     mixture, or preparation of the plant, its seeds or resin. 
     It does not include the mature stalks of the plant, fiber
     produced from the stalks, oil or cake made from the seeds
     of the plant, any other compound, manufacture, salt,
     derivative, mixture, or preparation of the mature stalks
     (except the resin extracted therefrom), fiber, oil, or
     cake, or the sterilized seed of the plant which is
     incapable of germination.


     The appellant contends that this statutory definition requires
the State to prove the presence of THC in order to obtain a
conviction for possession of marijuana.  Notwithstanding that
contention, we have held that lay testimony may provide substantial
evidence of the identity of a controlled substance, even in the
absence of expert chemical analysis.  Moser v. State, 262 Ark. 329,
557 S.W.2d 385 (1977).  See also Blair v. State, 16 Ark. App. 1,
696 S.W.2d 755 (1985);  Armstrong v. State, 5 Ark. App. 96, 633 S.W.2d 51 (1982).  In this case, we not only have the fact that the
drug-sniffing dog stopped at Springston's locker and the fact that
Springston admitted that the contraband substance was his, but we
have an expert chemical analysis identifying the substance as
marijuana, both by visual examination and chemical testing.  It
would be incongruous for us to say, as we did in Moser, that
chemical analysis is not a necessity and then to say in this case
that the chemical analysis was not thorough enough. 
     Given the findings of the chemist, along with the lay
testimony, we hold that there was substantial evidence to support
the juvenile adjudication for possession of marijuana.
     Affirmed.