Court Opinion

ID: 9682179
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 08:06:40.304706+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:17:37.837653
License: Public Domain

Annabellb Clinton Imber., Justice, dissenting in part and concurring in part. I concur with the majority in holding that the trial court abused its discretion in allowing a set of triple-beam scales to be admitted into evidence over appellant’s timely objection. No connection was established between appellant and the set of triple-beam scales confiscated from another person’s home. Tommy Steen, an investigator for the Baxter County Sheriffs office, admitted that the set of triple-beam scales offered into evidence as State’s Exhibit No. 24 was found in a bedroom closet at the Silvers’s residence. Steen further admitted that he could not connect those triple-beam scales to the alleged transactions at the Hicks’s residence. Thus, any conclusion connecting appellant with the triple-beam scales could only be reached by speculation and their admission into evidence was prejudicial error. The admission of the triple-beam scales might have been proper had Steen recovered them from Hicks’s residence. See e.g., Cox v. State, 36 Ark. App. 173, 820 S.W.2d 471 (1991) (upholding the admission of testimony by officer who personally observed triple-beam scales in the defendant’s bedroom). The majority further concludes that the probative value of the evidence improperly admitted by the trial court was substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice to the jury’s consideration of only one charge, the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia. I disagree. The danger of unfair prejudice extended to all charges, especially those involving delivery of controlled subtances and possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. Although the majority accurately characterizes triple-beam scales as paraphernalia under the definition of “drug paraphernalia” in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-101 (v)(5), the information filed against appellant does not include an allegation of possession of triple-beam scales in the drug paraphernalia charge. Rather, the drug paraphernalia charge refers only to possession of a pipe containing suspected marijuana residue and a water pipe containing suspected marijuana residue. When the State moved to admit the set of triple-beam scales into evidence, the State made no reference to its relevancy with respect to a particular charge. Rather, the State’s argument in favor of relevancy is reflected in the following colloquy between counsel and the trial court: MR. CHANDLER: I don’t understand. These are the scales from the Silvers’s residence. Are you representing that these are the scales that were used in this case or are they just the scales from the Silvers’s residence? MR. WEBB: All I know Mr. Chandler, is that you made reference earlier to some scales that were missing. We’re simply, as a part of this investigation and coincidentally found in close proximity, these scales were recovered from one of the participants. MR. CHANDLER: These are the missing? MR. WEBB: I’d submit that they are relevant evidence. MR. CHANDLER: I’m going to object to that, Your Honor. COURT: Objection will be overruled. (Emphasis added.) It is highly probable that the jury considered the triple-beam scales in connection with all of the charges, particularly the charges of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver and delivery of a controlled substance. The introduction into evidence of triple-beam scales would support an essential element of the State’s controlled substance charges: delivery and intent to deliver. See Ramey v. State, 42 Ark. App. 242, 857 S.W.2d 828 (1993) (finding items, including a set of triple-beam scales and large quantities of plastic bags seized from the appellant, to be sufficient evidence of operating a drug premises). As to the two counts of delivery of a controlled substance and and the one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, I certainly cannot say that the jury was not adversely influenced by the erroneous admission of the set of triple-beam scales. To the contrary, the imposition of a sentence of thirty years on each count with a recommendation that the sentences be served consecutively indicates that the error did have a prejudicial effect as to all charges. See Moser v. State, 262 Ark. 329, 557 S.W.2d 385 (1977). For these reasons, I concur with the majority to reverse the conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia and remand on that count; however, I dissent from the majority’s affirmance of the convictions for two counts of delivery of a controlled substance and for one count of possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver. I would reverse and remand for a new trial on those counts as well. Newbern and Corbin, JJ. join in this dissent.