Court Opinion

ID: 9839428
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-13 14:03:47.678624+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:40:00.485923
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 383
                      ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                         DIVISION III
                                         No. CR-23-159

 RODNEY DEWAYNE SMITH                            Opinion Delivered September 13, 2023

                    APPELLANT
                                                 APPEAL FROM THE ARKANSAS
                                                 COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
 V.                                              NORTHERN DISTRICT
                                                 [NO. 01SCR-20-35]
 STATE OF ARKANSAS
                                    APPELLEE HONORABLE DONNA GALLOWAY,
                                             JUDGE

                                                 AFFIRMED

                                 CINDY GRACE THYER, Judge

          Appellant Rodney DeWayne Smith appeals the order of the Arkansas County Circuit

Court revoking his probation and sentencing him to a term of three years in the Arkansas

Department of Correction. On appeal, he asserts that the circuit court committed reversible

error by admitting testimony into evidence in violation of the Confrontation Clause. We

affirm.

          In May 2021, Smith pled guilty to one count of first-degree forgery and one count of

third-degree escape.1 He was sentenced to four years’ probation and was assessed $955 in

          1
        Smith was originally charged with one count of use or possession of paraphernalia
to manufacture methamphetamine or cocaine; four counts of first-degree forgery; one count
of fleeing on foot; and one count of third-degree escape. In exchange for his plea, the
remaining counts were nolle prossed.
fines, fees, and court costs to be paid in $50 monthly increments. His probation was

conditioned in part on his reporting to his supervising officer; obeying all federal and state

laws; refraining from the ownership, use, and possession of firearms; and from the use, sale,

distribution, or possession of any controlled substances. Approximately four months later,

on September 20, 2021, the State filed a petition to revoke Smith’s probation asserting that

Smith had violated the terms and conditions of his probation by failing to obey Arkansas

law; by testing positive for controlled substances; by possessing or owning a firearm; and by

failing to pay his financial obligations.

       The revocation hearing was held on September 8, 2022. The State’s first witness at

the hearing was probation officer Mahir Tucker, who was called to testify regarding Smith’s

positive drug screen. Agent Tucker advised the court that, while he was familiar with Smith’s

case through the probation-office records, he had not met Smith until the revocation

hearing. Because Agent Tucker was not Smith’s supervising officer and had not conducted

the drug screen at issue, counsel objected to his testimony. Counsel asserted that, because

the drug screen administered to Smith required interpretation by the supervising officer and

because his supervising officer was not present to testify at the hearing, allowing Agent Mahir

to testify regarding the results of that drug screen would violate Smith’s constitutional right

to confrontation.

       Due to the nature of defense counsel’s objection, the court allowed the parties to voir

dire the witness as to his knowledge surrounding Smith’s drug screen. On voir dire, Agent

Tucker testified that the drug screen at issue consisted of a urine test conducted with a cup

                                              2
with the results indicated by the presence or the absence of a line on a test strip. He stated

he was trained in the administration of the test; that the test requires supervising officers to

interpret the results; and that if the results were questionable, a second officer was needed

to verify the test results. He explained that if a second officer was needed to interpret the

results, the Eomis report would indicate that such assistance had been required.

Additionally, if the offender challenged the veracity or accuracy of the test results, the test

results could be submitted to a lab for further testing. Again, if such a request was made, the

Eomis reports would reflect the request and would identify the verifying officer. He then

testified that the Eomis report did not indicate that Smith’s drug screening required

confirmation by a second officer. No explanation was given as to why Smith’s probation

officer was not available to testify at the hearing.

       After hearing Agent Tucker’s voir dire testimony and the arguments of counsel, the

court found that Smith’s confrontation rights would not be violated by the introduction of

this evidence through Agent Tucker and that good cause existed for not allowing

confrontation. More specifically, as to its good-cause finding, the court found the following:

       The good cause is, as I stated a moment ago, there is a procedure that is followed
       when it comes to the training of drug testing and the reading of those results. And
       Agent Tucker was able to specifically specify that procedure, and has also indicated
       and stated that it is a requirement and part of the process of reporting those direct
       test results whenever the line is blurred and there needs to be additional reading from
       another officer to verify whether or not that actually is going to be an interpretation
       of a positive drug test result or not. So that is the good cause that I am stating.

       Once his testimony was deemed admissible, Agent Tucker testified that the Eomis

records indicated that Smith had submitted to a drug screen on August 6, 2021, in the

                                                3
Stuttgart probation office; that the test returned positive for cocaine, THC marijuana, and

methamphetamine; and that the petition to revoke was premised, in part, on that positive

drug screen. He admitted on cross-examination that he was working in the Pine Bluff office

at the time of Smith’s drug screening, that he did not personally conduct the test, and that

he did not have any personal knowledge as to how the lines appeared on the drug test or if

a second opinion was necessary to verify the positive results. In fact, he had no direct

knowledge of whether the test performed was a urine, blood, or breath test.

       The State’s next witness was Karen Bronson, a financial coordinator with the

Arkansas County Prosecutor’s Office. She testified that Smith had financial obligations of

$955 and that he had not made any payments toward those financial obligations. On cross-

examination, however, she stated she was unaware of whether he had been released from

custody since his conviction.

       At the close of the State’s case, Smith moved to dismiss the drug-test violation based

on the violation of his confrontation rights as set forth in Pope v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 413,

607 S.W.3d 512, and the failure-to-pay allegation because there had been no evidence of his

release from custody sufficient to trigger his payment obligations. Counsel also moved to

dismiss the other allegations in the petition since there had been no testimony on those

counts. The court granted the motion to dismiss on all allegations except the allegation

regarding his alleged illegal drug usage.

       Thereafter, Smith chose to testify in his own defense. He confirmed that he had

submitted to a urine test for controlled substances on August 6, 2021, but he denied using

                                              4
either cocaine or methamphetamine prior to the drug test. He admitted however, that he

had used marijuana while he was on probation.

       In closing argument, defense counsel acknowledged the “minor violation” of Smith’s

probation and requested that the court convert the remaining probation time to a suspended

imposition of sentence (SIS) given the nature of the violation—a single failed drug screen—

and given the fact that Smith was facing time on several pending cases. In the alternative,

defense counsel requested the minimum sentence on the escape charge and a fine or an SIS

on the forgery charge. The State disagreed, noting that Smith had admitted his violation,

and it recommended a five-year sentence. At the conclusion of the hearing, the circuit court

revoked Smith’s probation and sentenced him to three years’ imprisonment.

       On appeal, Smith argues that the circuit court erred in finding “good cause” to allow

Agent Tucker to testify from the notes of his supervising officer, when the supervising officer

was not available on cross-examination. He claims this error resulted in a violation of his

constitutional right to confront and cross-examine the witnesses against him. We agree.

       Generally, a defendant in a revocation hearing is not entitled to the full panoply of

rights that attend a criminal prosecution, but he or she is entitled to due process. Goforth v.

State, 27 Ark. App. 150, 767 S.W.2d 537 (1989). As we recognized in Goforth, the United

States Supreme Court has held that a defendant is entitled to the right to confront and cross-

examine adverse witnesses unless good cause is shown for not allowing confrontation. Id. at

152, 767 S.W.2d at 538 (citing Gagnon v. Scarpelli, 411 U.S. 778 (1973)). This holding is

codified at Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-93-307(c)(1) (Repl. 2016). According to

                                              5
Goforth, the circuit court must balance the probationer’s right to confront witnesses against

grounds asserted by the State for not requiring confrontation. Goforth, 27 Ark. App. 150,

767 S.W.2d 537. First, the court should assess the explanation offered by the State for why

confrontation is undesirable or impractical. Id. A second factor that must be considered is

the reliability of the evidence that the State offers in place of live testimony. Id.

           Responding to Smith’s objection that he would not be able to confront his reporting

officer, the State explained that good cause existed because there was a policy and procedure

in place for administering a drug test; that Agent Tucker was trained in the policy and

procedure; that standard records were kept on each probationer in the ordinary course of

business; that Agent Tucker had access to the supervising officer’s notes and records; and

that no additional testimony would be required regarding the results. Notably absent,

however, was the name of his supervising officer and why he or she was not available to

testify.

           Having reviewed the record before us, it does not appear that the circuit court in this

case considered the first prong of the balancing test required by Goforth. Despite any

evidence as to why the supervising officer was unavailable to testify thereby making

confrontation impractical, the court found that good cause existed due to the reliability of

the evidence. This simply was not enough to satisfy the requirements set forth in Goforth.

Moreover, the testimony elicited at trial revealed that, in some instances, the interpretation

of the drug screen requires some subjective interpretation and/or verification by a second

officer. While the records Agent Tucker relied on did not indicate that verification by a

                                                  6
second officer was required in this case, Agent Tucker had no personal knowledge as to the

visual conclusiveness of the test or whether such verification should have been provided. As

a result, Smith was prevented from conducting an effective cross-examination on the validity

of the test results. Thus, we hold that the Confrontation Clause was violated. See Pope, supra

(holding that defendant’s confrontation rights were violated when supervising officer did

not testify, but his notes were used by another probation officer to establish a probation

violation); see also Nelson v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 324, 551 S.W.3d 417 (holding that

defendant’s confrontation rights were violated by officer’s testimony regarding the cause of

defendant’s discharge from program when no one from the program testified); see also

Graham v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 162 (holding that defendant’s confrontation rights were

violated by officer’s testimony concerning defendant’s delivery of drugs to a confidential

informant when informant did not testify).

       However, when error occurs at revocation proceedings involving the constitutional

right to confront adverse witnesses, those errors are subject to harmless-error analysis.

Fountain v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 71; see also Green v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 291, 461 S.W.3d

731. Accordingly, because we hold that the Smith’s confrontation rights were violated, we

must next determine if the error was harmless.

       We conduct this analysis utilizing a variety of factors identified by our supreme court.

These factors include the importance of the witness’s testimony in the State’s case, whether

the testimony was cumulative, the presence or absence of evidence corroborating or

contradicting the testimony of the witness on material points, the extent of cross-

                                              7
examination otherwise permitted, and the overall strength of the State’s case. Green, 2015

Ark. App. 291, at 5, 461 S.W.3d at 734 (citing Delaware v. Van Arsdall, 475 U.S. 673 (1986);

Andrews v. State, 344 Ark. 606, 42 S.W.3d 484 (2001)). This court will not reverse unless

prejudice has been shown. Fountain, supra.

       To revoke probation, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of the evidence

that the defendant violated a condition of his probation, and we will not reverse the circuit

court’s findings in that regard unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the

evidence. Nash v. State, 2023 Ark. App. 285, 667 S.W.3d 579. The circuit court here found

that Smith had violated the terms and conditions of his probation requiring him to abstain

from illegal drug use. If Agent Tucker’s testimony was the only evidence introduced to

support a revocation of Smith’s probation based on a drug-usage violation, we would clearly

be required to reverse Smith’s revocation on Confrontation Clause grounds. See Pope, supra.

But it was not. Smith testified at the revocation hearing and admitted that he used marijuana

during the term of his probation. Thus, introduction of Agent Tucker’s testimony regarding

Smith’s positive drug screen is merely cumulative to the evidence of Smith’s admission to

illegal drug usage. Smith’s admission, on its own, was sufficient to support the revocation.

See Ingram v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 729, 363 S.W.3d 6 (holding that there was no need for

the State to introduce further evidence when the appellant admitted alleged violations). As

a result, any error was harmless.

       Smith argues that we should not consider his admission in our harmless-error analysis

because he would not have testified if the court had correctly excluded Agent Tucker’s

                                             8
testimony during the State’s case in chief.2 Our law is clear that, had Smith not testified,

there would have been no admissible evidence before the court to support the alleged

probation violation; that the Confrontation Clause error would not have survived a

harmless-error analysis; and that reversal would be appropriate. See Pope, supra. However,

that is not what occurred. Here, unlike the defendant in Pope, Smith elected to proceed with

a defense and thereby waived any argument to the court’s consideration of additional

evidence. See, e.g., Thomas v. State, 315 Ark. 504, 506, 868 S.W.2d 483, 485 (1994) (“A

defendant who goes forward with the production of additional evidence after a directed

       2
        In support of his claim, Smith cites Bynum v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 477, 561 S.W.3d
755. In Bynum, this court was faced with whether trial counsel’s representation of Bynum
was ineffective due to his failure to seek dismissal of numerous charges on statute-of-
limitations grounds. The facts were these:

        Bynum was convicted on ten counts of fourth-degree sexual assault committed against
AH; one count of second-degree sexual assault committed against TH; and one count of
second-degree sexual assault committed against CP. On direct appeal, we reversed his fourth-
degree sexual-assault convictions on statute-of-limitation grounds. Bynum then filed a
petition for postconviction relief asserting ineffective assistance of counsel for trial counsel’s
failure to request dismissal of those charges at trial. He alleged that, because the jury had
heard testimony about twelve charges instead of two, confidence in the outcome of the trial
had been compromised. In our consideration as to whether trial counsel’s deficient
performance was prejudicial, this court noted that, while AH’s testimony would have been
admissible under the pedophile exception, it was unknown whether AH would have agreed
to testify if the charges related to his abuse had been dismissed. While this seemingly
supports Smith’s position, Bynum is only minimally persuasive because the uncertainty of
procuring AH’s testimony in that scenario was only one of a number of factors considered
by the court in making its determination that reversal was appropriate. Instead, our focus in
the analysis of prejudice was primarily on the fact that no limiting instruction was given as
to the use of AH’s testimony and the fact that Bynum had been charged with twelve crimes
against three victims instead of two crimes against two victims. We found the latter in itself
to be prejudicial to Bynum.

                                                9
verdict motion is overruled waives any further reliance upon the former motion.”). This

additional evidence consisted of his admission that he had violated the terms and conditions

of his probation by smoking marijuana. This admission is sufficient to support the probation

revocation and renders the otherwise reversible error harmless. Therefore, we affirm.

       Affirmed.

       HARRISON, C.J., and MURPHY, J., agree.

       Lassiter & Cassinelli, by: Michael Kiel Kaiser, for appellant.

       Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Christopher R. Warthen, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

                                                10