Court Opinion

ID: 9678714
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 06:29:51.700309+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:30:07.705558
License: Public Domain

Wendell L. Griffen, Judge, dissenting. The issue in this case is whether the State proved that Anthony White committed Class C possession of a drug pipe in furtherance of a felony drug offense (possession of cocaine) in violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-403 (c)(1) (A) (i) (Repl. 2005). Possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of subsection (c)(l)(A)(i) is a Class C felony if committed in the course of and in furtherance of a felony violation under subchapters 1-6 of the Controlled Substances Act. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-403(c)(l)(B). Otherwise, possession of drug paraphernalia in violation of subsection (c)(l)(A)(i) is a Class A misdemeanor. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-63-403(c)(l)(A)(ii). Because the State failed to prove that the underlying felony, cocaine possession, had an objective independent of White’s possession of the crack pipe that was facilitated by his crack-pipe possession, I would affirm White’s conviction but remand for resentencing as a Class A misdemeanor. The majority opinion correctly states that the Arkansas Supreme Court has examined the phrase “in the course of and in furtherance of the felony” in the context of a felony-murder charge, and determined that the underlying felony must have an independent objective that the murder facilitates. See Harper v. State, 359 Ark. 142, 104 S.W.3d 730 (2004); Parker v. State, 292 Ark. 421, 731 S.W.2d 756 (1987) (emphasis added). The Parker court explained: For the phrase “in the course of and in furtherance of the felony” to have any meaning, the burglary must have an independent objective which the murder facilitates. In this instance, the burglary and murder have the same objective. That objective, the intent to kill, is what makes the underlying act of entry into the home a burglary. The burglary was actually no more than one step toward the commission of the murder and was not to facilitate the murder. Parker, at 427, 731 S.W.2d at 759 (emphasis added). Thus, pursuant to Parker, where the objectives of the underlying felony and the furthering felony are the same, the State cannot prove the “furtherance” element. The majority also correctly states that in this case possession of cocaine is the felony that the State alleged was being furthered by White’s possession of the crack pipe. See Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-401 (a)(1) (Repl. 2005). The majority maintains that cocaine possession has twin independent objectives of consumption or sale and affirms appellant’s conviction reasoning that appellant’s possession of the drug pipe facilitated his consumption of cocaine. However, the majority misapprehends the independent-objective test. The State does not satisfy its burden of proof by merely proving that cocaine possession has multiple, independent objectives. Rather, the State must prove that cocaine possession has an objective that is independent of the crack-pipe possession that is facilitated by the crack pipe possession. This is made clear by the language in Parker, apparently ignored by the majority, explaining that where the objectives of the underlying felony and the furthering felony are the same, the State cannot prove the “furtherance” element. Parker, at 427, 731 S.W.2d at 759. Applying the Parker reasoning here means that White could be convicted of Class C possession of drug paraphernalia only if his possession of cocaine had an objective independent from his crack-pipe possession. By the plain terms of the majority’s reasoning, the objective of the cocaine possession is not independent from the objective of the crack-pipe possession. Like the burglary and murder in the Parker case, both White’s possession of cocaine and his possession of the crack pipe serve the same objective: to allow him to ingest or smoke cocaine. As in Parker, the felony being furthered here did not have an objective independent of the “furthering” felony because both felonies constituted steps toward the commission of the same, ultimate crime. That means the State failed to prove that White committed Class C felony possession of drug paraphernalia. Because White does not dispute that he possessed the crack pipe or that the pipe contained cocaine residue, I would affirm his conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia but would remand for resentencing as a Class A misdemeanor pursuant to § 5-63-403(c)(l)(A)(ii). Finally, the majority’s citation to Eighth Circuit cases is unpersuasive. While the Eighth Circuit applies a similar “nexus” test in cases involving possession of a firearm in furtherance of a federal drug-trafficking crime, the Arkansas Supreme Court has not adopted a nexus test for cases involving the possession of drug paraphernalia in furtherance of a felony under Arkansas’s Controlled Substances Act. Whether to adopt the nexus test, which eases the government’s burden of proof, is a matter for the Arkansas General Assembly or the Arkansas Supreme Court to decide — not the Arkansas Court of Appeals. Accordingly, I would reverse and remand this case pursuant to Parker, supra, which is the governing law in this case.