Court Opinion

ID: 9377597
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-03-08 15:02:02.10758+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:17:15.139897
License: Public Domain

Cite as 2023 Ark. App. 143
                   ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
                                       DIVISION II
                                       No. CR-22-358

 MICHAEL FREDRICK STRANGE                       Opinion Delivered   March 8, 2023
                     APPELLANT
                                                APPEAL FROM THE BAXTER
                                                COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
 V.                                             [NO. 03CR-20-37]

 STATE OF ARKANSAS                        HONORABLE JOHN R. PUTMAN,
                                 APPELLEE JUDGE

                                                AFFIRMED

                            WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge

       A Baxter County jury convicted appellant Michael Strange of possession of a

controlled substance, methamphetamine; fleeing; reckless driving; and shoplifting.

Appellant was sentenced to an aggregate term of ninety months’ imprisonment. He argues

on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to support his possession conviction. We affirm.

       Appellant’s jury trial was held December 8–9, 2021. Officer Ryan Thompson of the

Mountain Home Police Department testified that he came in contact with appellant on

January 17, 2020, while on patrol. He stated that around 12:48 a.m., he passed appellant,

who was driving a black Toyota, on Highway 62. He said that he turned around to observe

appellant’s driving since he had been working DWI enforcement that night. He testified

that once behind appellant, he noticed that the license-plate sticker was expired, so he
attempted to initiate a traffic stop on the vehicle. Initially, appellant did not slow down or

speed up, but he eventually turned on his emergency flashers and accelerated at a high rate

of speed, driving between eighty and one hundred miles an hour. Officer Thompson stated

that, due to the high speed, his sergeant at the time, Jonathan Griffin, told him to go ahead

and terminate the pursuit. He said that he subsequently lost sight of the vehicle. However,

he testified that he continued to look for the vehicle. Officer Thompson stated that the tag

number showed the last name of the owner as Strange, but he could not remember whether

it was appellant’s or appellant’s dad’s name. He said that appellant had been linked to the

vehicle from a previous stop. He testified that he actually “laid eyes” on appellant after

appellant got into another pursuit with another officer, who was able to apprehend appellant

at his parents’ house located at 483 Marquis Drive. He admitted that it was too dark for

him to see whether appellant had been driving the vehicle when he pursued it. He stated

that when he arrived on Marquis Drive, appellant was already handcuffed.              Officer

Thompson testified that appellant was placed in the back of his patrol vehicle. He said that

a search of appellant’s vehicle revealed 0.42 grams of suspected crystal meth. He stated that

he did not find the suspected drugs, but Officer Robert Recktenwald found it somewhere in

the passenger’s side of the vehicle and handed it to him. He said that he logged the suspected

drugs into evidence. He testified that he has been an officer since 2015 and denied ever

planting contraband or being accused of such. He also denied knowing that Officer

Recktenwald or any of the other officers on the scene had ever been accused or under

suspicion of planting contraband.

                                              2
       On cross-examination, Officer Thompson testified that he did not see who was

driving the vehicle when he lost sight of it after he terminated the chase and that when he

arrived on Marquis Drive, appellant was already handcuffed and under arrest.

       Officer Griffin of the Gassville Police Department testified that he was a sergeant for

the Mountain Home Police Department at the time in question. He stated that he believes

Officer Recktenwald is truthful and not the type to plant evidence to get a conviction. He

denied ever working with an officer who planted evidence. He said that he does not believe

Officer Recktenwald made up finding the suspected drugs in appellant’s vehicle. He testified

that he instructed Officer Thompson to terminate the pursuit due to the dangerous speeds.

He stated that although the pursuit was terminated, officers were looking for the vehicle. He

said that he arrived on the scene as appellant was being placed under arrest. However, he

stated that he was not there when the suspected drugs were found. He testified that all the

officers wear body cameras, but “the system kicks out stuff. It can only hold so much . . .

and then it purges out the rest.”

       On cross-examination, Officer Griffin testified that he performed a search of the

passenger’s side of the vehicle and did not find anything.

       Officer Tyler Politte of the Mountain Home Police Department testified that he

arrived at the Marquis Drive address and subsequently turned on his body camera. He

denied that any officer on the scene would have planted drugs in appellant’s car. He said

that he was standing behind Officer Recktenwald when Officer Recktenwald found the

suspected drugs. He stated that it was his understanding that the suspected drugs were

                                              3
“pulled up from between the passenger seat and the center console.” He said that they

continue to do a thorough check of the vehicle because “they try to hide stuff . . . when they

disappear like that.”

       On cross-examination, Officer Politte testified that he arrived on the scene when

appellant was being walked to the patrol car. He said that he turned on his camera as he was

walking to appellant’s car.

       Megan Peters with the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory testified that she tested the

evidence in this case for the presence of controlled substances. She stated that she performed

three tests: a spot test, a thin layer chromatography, and a gas chromatography-mass

spectrometry. She said that the evidence was an adequate size to test. She stated that the

sample contained methamphetamine and that it weighed 0.1418 grams. She testified that

the amount tested was weighable and detectable. Her report was entered into evidence

without objection.

       On cross-examination, Peters testified that she did not perform a quantitative test to

determine what percentage of the evidence was actually methamphetamine. However, she

stated that she took three separate aliquots of the evidence, and each one showed the

presence of methamphetamine.

       Officer Recktenwald of the Mountain Home Police Department testified that he has

never planted evidence on anyone. He stated that on January 17, 2020, he was part of the

pursuit that had gotten called off. He said that he subsequently drove to the Mower

Warehouse and faced the highway. He testified that around 1:00 a.m., he noticed a vehicle

                                              4
that matched the description of the fleeing vehicle and saw appellant driving it. He stated

that he and Officer Rodney Wiggins got behind the vehicle, and he tried to initiate a stop

on the vehicle, but appellant continued to drive home. He said that once home, appellant

exited the driver’s side of the vehicle and attempted to go into the house. He testified that

appellant was ordered to stop and was subsequently placed under arrest. He said that he

participated in the search of appellant’s vehicle and found a plastic baggie containing

methamphetamine between the passenger seat and the center console. He stated that as he

was following appellant, he was able to see appellant reach toward the passenger side of the

vehicle. He said that he even made notification on the radio that appellant was reaching on

the passenger side. Officer Recktenwald testified that his blue lights could light up the inside

of a vehicle. He also stated that he was in a well-lit area when he saw appellant. He denied

that he or any other officer on the scene planted the methamphetamine in appellant’s

vehicle.

       On cross-examination, Officer Recktenwald testified that he was the officer who put

handcuffs on appellant. He said that he is the officer who found the methamphetamine.

He admitted that he did not have on his body camera that night. He agreed that it did not

take him long to locate the methamphetamine in the vehicle.

       Sergeant Wiggins of the Mountain Home Police Department testified that he saw

appellant get out of the driver’s side of the vehicle on the night in question. He stated that

he and Officer Recktenwald followed appellant for less than a minute. He said that appellant

                                               5
had a backpack that he was trying to hand off to his father. He stated that Officer

Recktenwald found the methamphetamine.

       On cross-examination, Sergeant Wiggins stated that he did not remember searching

the vehicle. He said that appellant did not run when he got out of the vehicle, but he did

appear to be “in a very fast pace.” He testified that there was a camera in the backpack

appellant tried to hand to his father.1

       After the State rested, appellant unsuccessfully moved for a directed verdict for the

charges against him. The defense rested without putting on any evidence. The directed-

verdict motions were renewed, and as it relates to the issue on appeal, appellant argued that

the State had not “met the burden of prima facie case to prove that [appellant] was in control

of any methamphetamine or had knowledge that any methamphetamine was in his car or

possession or that it was a usable or measurable amount.” The circuit court denied the

motion.       The jury found appellant guilty and sentenced him to ninety months’

imprisonment on the possession-of-methamphetamine charge. The other charges were to

run concurrently to this sentence. The sentencing order was filed on December 14, 2021.

Appellant filed a timely notice of appeal on January 9, 2022.

       On appeal, we review a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency

of the evidence and will affirm the circuit court’s denial of a directed-verdict motion if there

       1
           The camera was the subject of the shoplifting conviction, which is not on appeal.

                                                6
is substantial evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to support the jury’s verdict. 2

Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the

other beyond suspicion or conjecture.3 In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence, we view

the evidence and all reasonable inferences in the light most favorable to the State and affirm

if it is supported by substantial evidence.4

       Appellant contends that the circuit court erred by denying his directed-verdict motion

for the possession-of-methamphetamine charge. More specifically, he contends that the State

failed to prove that he had knowledge of the methamphetamine or that the amount of

methamphetamine found was usable.

       When arguing that the State failed to prove that he had knowledge of the

methamphetamine, appellant points to the fact that at least one other officer searched that

area of the vehicle before Officer Recktenwald found the baggie of methamphetamine. He

also argues that the amount was so small that he was unaware it was there. The evidence

viewed in the light most favorable to the State shows that appellant failed to stop when

Officer Thompson tried to initiate a traffic stop on him, and instead accelerated to high rates

of speed, causing the pursuit to be terminated. Officer Recktenwald subsequently spotted

the vehicle involved in the chase and recognized appellant driving the vehicle. He, too, tried

to stop appellant, but instead of stopping, appellant pulled into his driveway and attempted

       2
           Martin v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 358, 630 S.W.3d 607.

       3
           Id.
       4
           Id.

                                               7
to go into the house. Appellant was stopped, handcuffed, and placed under arrest. Officer

Recktenwald testified that as he was following appellant, he could see appellant reaching

toward the passenger side of the vehicle. Thus, when Officer Recktenwald searched the

vehicle, he was able to locate a baggie that contained methamphetamine in the area appellant

had been reaching. It was up to the jury to determine whether appellant’s actions showed

knowledge of the methamphetamine, and the circuit court properly denied appellant’s

directed-verdict motion on the basis of his knowledge. To the extent that appellant asks us

to reweigh the evidence in his favor, we will not do so.

       Appellant also argues that the State failed to show that methamphetamine was a

usable amount. The measurable amount of methamphetamine for the purpose of inferring

intent includes the amount of pure drug plus all adulterants.5 We have held that the State

must prove that the accused possessed an amount of a controlled substance that is either

sufficient to permit knowledge of its presence without the need for scientific testing or

sufficient to be usable in the manner in which such a substance is ordinarily used. 6 Peters

testified that the drugs submitted to the crime lab were both weighable and detectable. She

said that she was able to perform three separate tests on the evidence, and all three were

positive for methamphetamine. Appellant argues that since there was no testimony that

0.1418 grams of methamphetamine is a usable amount, the State failed to meet its burden.

       5
           Kolb v. State, 2021 Ark. 58.

       6
           Id.

                                              8
However, it does not matter that no one testified that 0.1418 grams is a usable amount of

methamphetamine or that at least one other officer missed it during the search. We have

held that 0.024 grams of cocaine was usable because it was capable of quantitative analysis,

could be seen with the naked eye, was tangible and could be picked up, and was a measurable

amount.7 The same holds true for the methamphetamine in this case. Furthermore, the

jury was free to believe or disbelieve that the amount was usable, and the circuit court

properly denied appellant’s directed-verdict motion based on usable amount.

       Affirmed.

       THYER and WOOD, JJ., agree.

       Dusti Standridge, for appellant.

       Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Rebecca Kane, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

       7
           See Sinks v. State, 44 Ark. App. 1, 864 S.W.3d 879 (1993).

                                                9