{
  "id": 6139855,
  "name": "Hale Thomas JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Johnson v. State",
  "decision_date": "1988-03-02",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 87-157",
  "first_page": "200",
  "last_page": "202",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "23 Ark. App. 200"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "745 S.W.2d 651"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "263 Ark. 446",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1672619
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1978,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "449-50"
        },
        {
          "page": "450"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/263/0446-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "10 Ark. App. 189",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6139686
      ],
      "weight": 4,
      "year": 1983,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/10/0189-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-401",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1987,
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 330,
    "char_count": 4927,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.921,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 7.591356421208395e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4497148289340421
    },
    "sha256": "6f8143d737209bc366bfbc0d7cdf4ffa3463cc545fb387f3b131c4941e646bdf",
    "simhash": "1:cf346446c76ff219",
    "word_count": 821
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:27.300013+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Coulson and Jennings, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Hale Thomas JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "James R. Cooper, Judge.\nThe appellant in this criminal case was charged with possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, a violation of Ark. Stat. Ann. \u00a7 82-2617 (Supp. 1985) [Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-401 (1987)]. After a jury trial, he was convicted of that charge and sentenced as an habitual offender to twenty-one years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. From that conviction, comes this appeal.\nFor reversal, the appellant argues that the quantity of the controlled substance he possessed was insufficient to sustain the verdict, and that the trial court thus erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. We affirm.\nThe record shows that Officers Hensley and Whitehead of the Little Rock Police Department were assigned to undercover work in the street crimes unit in August 1985. On the night in question, the appellant approached the undercover officers and offered to sell them marijuana or cocaine. The appellant suggested that the officers pay him for the drugs \u201cup front.\u201d The officers refused to pay him before seeing the drugs, however, and the appellant got in the officers\u2019 van, directing them to several different locations before telling them to stop at a house on Wolfe Street. The appellant told the officers that he was going to buy cocaine, and entered the house. He returned shortly thereafter with a packet containing white powder. The appellant told the officers that the packet contained \u201cD\u2019s,\u201d a street term for Dilaudid, and that the price was $25.00. Hensley then identified himself as a police officer. As the appellant was being placed under arrest, he dropped four packets, which Officer Whitehead retrieved. An analysis performed by the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory showed that the packets contained .095 grams of a substance made up of both cocaine and Carisoprodal, the latter being a non-controlled muscle relaxant. No evidence was presented at trial to show the proportionate amounts of cocaine and Carisoprodal present in the powder.\nThe appellant asserts that, because he presented the substance for sale as Dilaudid, he did not knowingly deliver cocaine to the officers. The issue raised bears on the appellant\u2019s intent, a state of mind which necessarily must be inferred, Walker v. State, 10 Ark. App. 189, 662 S.W.2d 196 (1983), and the real question is whether the State produced sufficient evidence to present a fact question to the jury. Id. There was evidence that the appellant initially asked the officers if they wanted to buy marijuana or cocaine, that the officers answered affirmatively, that the purpose of directing the officers on a journey ending at the house on Wolfe Street was to purchase cocaine, and that the appellant stated upon arriving at the house that he was going inside to get cocaine. We hold that there was sufficient evidence of the appellant\u2019s intent to submit the issue to the jury, and that the conflicts in the evidence were for the jury to resolve. See Walker v. State, supra.\nNext, the appellant contends that the amount of cocaine present in the substance was insufficient to be applied to the use commonly made of cocaine, and that possession of the substance with intent to deliver therefore did not constitute an offense. We do no agree. The Arkansas Supreme Court dealt with the question of possession of small quantities of controlled substance in Berry v. State, 263 Ark. 446, 565 S.W.2d 418 (1978), where it was held that a conviction for possession of heroin with intent to deliver could not be sustained when the only heroin in the appellant\u2019s possession consisted of trace amounts found in a bottle cap. The Berry Court noted that the State must show that the accused possessed a specified quantity of a particular drug with the intent to deliver that drug, and reasoned that proof of intent to deliver was lacking in that case because it could not be argued that the appellant therein intended to recover and sell the minute amount of heroin in the bottle cap. Berry, 263 Ark. at 449-50. Id. at 450. We think that the facts of Berry are distinguishable from those presented in the case at bar because here there was evidence that the appellant had procured the substance with the intent of selling it to the undercover officers, and had in fact already stated the price at the time he was arrested. Under these circumstances, we think that the quantity of cocaine possessed by the appellant was sufficient to support his conviction for possession of cocaine with intent to deliver, and we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nCoulson and Jennings, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "James R. Cooper, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, Jerry Sailings, Deputy Public Defender, by: Llewellyn J. Marczuk, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.",
      "Steve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Hale Thomas JOHNSON v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 87-157\n745 S.W.2d 651\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division I\nOpinion delivered March 2, 1988\nWilliam R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, Jerry Sailings, Deputy Public Defender, by: Llewellyn J. Marczuk, Deputy Public Defender, for appellant.\nSteve Clark, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Theodore Holder, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0200-01",
  "first_page_order": 224,
  "last_page_order": 226
}