Title: Burris v. State

State: arkansas

Issuer: Arkansas Supreme Court

Document:

Richard BURRIS v. STATE of Arkansas

CR 97-494                                          ___ S.W.2d ___

                    Supreme Court of Arkansas
                Opinion delivered October 2, 1997


1.   Evidence -- sufficiency of -- substantial evidence discussed.
     -- The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is
     whether there is substantial evidence to support a verdict;
     substantial evidence is direct or circumstantial evidence that
     is forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or another
     and which goes beyond mere speculation or conjecture; in
     making this determination, the supreme court reviews the
     evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and
     considers only the evidence that supports the verdict. 

2.   Evidence -- review of sufficiency of evidence on appeal --
     both properly and improperly admitted evidence considered. --
     When reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence upon appeal the
     supreme court must consider both properly and improperly
     admitted evidence; because the police found the drugs and guns
     in appellant's vehicle, there was substantial evidence to
     support his convictions.

3.   Motions -- suppression motion -- review of trial court's
     denial of -- when reversed. -- In reviewing the trial court's
     denial of a suppression motion, the supreme court makes an
     independent examination based on the totality of the
     circumstances, and reverses only if the trial court's ruling
     was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence; in
     making this determination, the court views the evidence in the
     light most favorable to the State. 

4.   Automobiles -- stopping and detaining motorists -- when
     allowed. -- A police officer may stop and detain a motorist
     where the officer has probable cause to believe that a traffic
     violation has occurred.  

5.   Criminal procedure -- when probable cause exists -- review
     liberal when assessing existence of probable cause. --
     Probable cause exists when the facts and circumstances within
     an officer's knowledge are sufficient to permit a person of
     reasonable caution to believe that an offense has been
     committed by the person suspected; in assessing the existence
     of probable cause, review is liberal rather than strict. 

6.   Automobiles -- sufficient probable cause of traffic violations
     existed for officer to stop vehicle -- initial stop lawful. --
     Where the police officer had probable cause to believe that
     appellant was committing two traffic violations, the initial
     stop was found to be lawful.

7.   Automobiles -- probable cause to believe that traffic
     violations occurred all that was necessary to stop vehicle --
     actual guilt for jury to decide. -- Appellant's argument that
     he was not guilty of violating either traffic law and so
     should not have been stopped was without merit; the officer
     need only have had probable cause to believe that a traffic
     violation had occurred in order to stop the vehicle; whether
     the defendant is actually guilty of the traffic violation is
     for a jury or a court to decide, and not an officer on the
     scene; the degree of proof sufficient to sustain a finding of
     probable cause is less than that required to sustain a
     criminal conviction. 

8.   Criminal procedure -- detention following lawful automobile
     stop must be reasonable -- circumstances under which suspect
     may be detained. -- Arkansas Rule of Criminal Procedure 3.1
     states that an officer may detain a suspect for not more than
     fifteen minutes or "for such time as reasonable under the
     circumstances" if the officer has a reasonable suspicion that
     the person is committing, has committed, or is about to commit
     either a felony or a misdemeanor involving danger of forcible
     injury to persons or of appropriation of or damage to
     property; a reasonable suspicion has been defined as a
     suspicion based upon facts or circumstances that give rise to
     more than a bare, imaginary, or purely conjectural suspicion;
     in making this determination, the trial court may consider
     several factors, including, but not limited to the demeanor of
     the suspect; the gait and manner of the suspect; any knowledge
     the officer may have of the suspect's background or character;
     and any apparent effort of the suspect to avoid identification
     or confrontation by the police.  

9.   Automobiles -- original stop for traffic violations -- search
     of car was not performed only because appellant had previous
     criminal record. -- Appellant's argument that the police
     officer should not have been able to consider his prior
     convictions and arrests as a reason for detaining him was
     without merit; Ark. Code Ann.  16-81-201(1) (1987) states
     that an officer may not "stop" a passerby and search him
     because he has a criminal record, but the officer stopped
     appellant for traffic violations, not because of his criminal
     record; the statute also says that a person may not be
     searched "merely" because he or she has a criminal record;
     here the officer retrieved a loaded weapon from appellant's
     car only after appellant disclosed that he had the weapon in
     his vehicle, and not merely because he had a criminal record;
     the inventory search of appellant's car occurred after his
     arrest and not merely because he had a criminal record. 

10.  Automobiles -- officer's detention of appellant reasonable 
     under circumstances -- appellant lawfully detained. -- Where
     the officer detained appellant for approximately fifteen to
     twenty minutes to explain to him the traffic violations for
     which he was stopped and to question him about his possible
     possession of guns and drugs; he testified that he detained
     and questioned appellant because (1) he was aware that
     appellant had been previously arrested on drug and gun
     charges; (2) appellant lied to him about his prior arrests;
     (3) appellant appeared unusually nervous and avoided eye
     contact; and (4) he was concerned for his own safety, the
     supreme court found that the officer had a reasonable
     suspicion that appellant was in possession of drugs which is
     a felony; moreover, the officer detained appellant for only
     fifteen or twenty minutes, which was "reasonable under the
     circumstances" as required by Rule 3.1; thus, the officer
     lawfully detained appellant.

11.  Appeal & error -- issue raised for first time on appeal --
     issue not reached. -- The supreme court will not consider
     issues raised for the first time on appeal. 

          Appeal from Crawford Circuit Court; Floyd "Pete" Rogers,
Judge; affirmed.
     John W. Settle Law Firm, by: John W. Settle, for appellant. 
     Winston Bryant, Att'y Gen., by:  Vada Berger, Asst. Att'y
Gen., for appellee.

     Annabelle Clinton Imber, Justice.
     The appellant, Richard Burris, was convicted of possession
of methamphetamine with intent to deliver, possession of
amphetamine with intent to deliver, and carrying a weapon.  For
these crimes, Burris was sentenced to a concurrent term of forty
years' imprisonment.  On appeal, Burris challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to sustain his convictions, and the
court's denial of his motion to suppress evidence seized from his
vehicle.  We affirm.
     On July 10, 1996, Captain Dale Best of the Arkansas State
Highway Patrol noticed a 1988 Dodge pulling a trailer traveling
along Interstate 40.  The Florida license plate was fastened to
the trailer in such a fashion that the wind caused the plate to
flip upwards making it difficult to read.  The last letters of
the license plate were also obscured by the corner of the
trailer.  Captain Best testified that he had to follow the
vehicle for "some distance" before he was able to read the entire
license plate.  In addition, the lens covering the left brake
light on the trailer was partially broken causing the light to
shine white instead of red.  
     Captain Best stopped the vehicle for the improperly
displayed license plate and for the broken brake light.  After
telling the driver, Richard Burris, why he had been stopped,
Captain Best asked Burris for his license, proof of insurance,
and registration.  While verifying this information, Captain Best
learned that Burris had previously been arrested for weapons and
drug charges, and convicted of a misdemeanor drug offense. 
Captain Best then asked Burris to come to the back of the trailer
where he explained to him that his license plate was improperly
attached and that his brake light was broken.  According to
Captain Best, Burris appeared to be unusually nervous and would
not make eye contact.  
     On three occasions, Captain Best asked Burris if he had ever
been arrested for criminal charges, including drugs, and Burris
answered that he had never been arrested for a crime other than
speeding.  Because Burris appeared nervous and had previously
been arrested on weapon charges, Captain Best became concerned
for his safety and asked Burris if he had any weapons.  Twice,
Burris answered in the negative.  Captain Best asked Burris for a
third time if he had any weapons in the car, and Burris answered
that he had a .22 caliber derringer "in the passenger's
compartment, next to the driver's seat, toward the floorboard, on
a console type arrangement."  Burris refused to give consent to
search the vehicle but offered to retrieve the gun for Captain
Best.  Captain Best refused the offer, and asked Burris to show
him where the gun was.  Burris did so, and Captain Best retrieved
the loaded gun from the front seat of the car. 
     Captain Best placed Burris under arrest, and began an
inventory search of the vehicle.  Captain Best estimated that
Burris was arrested fifteen to twenty minutes after the initial
stop.  During the inventory of Burris's vehicle, the officers
found in the trunk several plastic bags containing amphetamine
and methamphetamine, and a loaded .44 revolver.  Burris was
subsequently charged with possession of methamphetamine with
intent to deliver, possession of amphetamine with intent to
deliver, and carrying a weapon
     The trial court denied Burris's motion to suppress the
evidence seized from his trunk, found him guilty of all three
crimes, and sentenced him to a concurrent term of forty years'
imprisonment.  Burris filed a timely notice of appeal from his
judgment and commitment order.
                 I.  Sufficiency of the Evidence
     For his first argument on appeal, Burris challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to support all three of his
convictions.  When an appellant challenges the sufficiency of the
evidence, we address the issue prior to all others in order to
preserve the defendant's right to freedom from double jeopardy. 
Rankin v. State, 329 Ark. 379, 948 S.W.2d 397 (1997); Williams v.
State, 329 Ark. 8, 946 S.W.2d 678 (1997).  The test for
determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether there is
substantial evidence to support a verdict.  Williams, supra;
Ladwig v. State, 328 Ark. 241, 943 S.W.2d 571 (1997). 
Substantial evidence is direct or circumstantial evidence that is
forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or another and
which goes beyond mere speculation or conjecture.  Williams,
supra; Ladwig, supra.  In making this determination, we review
the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and
consider only the evidence that supports the verdict.  Williams,
supra; Ladwig, supra.  
      Burris's sole challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence
is his argument that his conviction must be reversed if we find
that the court erred in denying his motion to suppress the
evidence seized from his car.  We find no merit to this argument
because we have continuously held that when reviewing the
sufficiency of the evidence upon appeal we must consider both
properly and improperly admitted evidence.  Martin v. State, 328
Ark. 420, 944 S.W.2d 512 (1997); Hicks v. State, 327 Ark. 652,
941 S.W.2d 387 (1997).  Because the police found the drugs and
guns in Burris's vehicle, we find that there was substantial
evidence to support his convictions.
                     II.  Motion to Suppress
     Burris's second argument is that the trial court erred when
it denied his motion to suppress the evidence that the police
seized from his car.  Burris contends that the drugs and guns
should have been suppressed because the initial stop, detainment,
and subsequent search of his vehicle were unlawful under the
Fourth Amendment. 
     In reviewing the trial court's denial of a suppression
motion, we make an independent examination based on the totality
of the circumstances, and reverse only if the trial court's
ruling was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. 
Norman v. State, 326 Ark. 210, 931 S.W.2d 96 (1996); Bohanan v.
State, 324 Ark. 158, 919 S.W.2d 198 (1996).  In making this
determination, we view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the State.  Norman, supra; Beshears v. State, 320 Ark. 573,