{
  "id": 6137986,
  "name": "William Andrew HYDE v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Hyde v. State",
  "decision_date": "1997-10-22",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 97-314",
  "first_page": "131",
  "last_page": "136",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "59 Ark. App. 131"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "953 S.W.2d 911"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 Ark. 104",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "306 Ark. 97",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1900894
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1991,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/306/0097-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "25 Ark. App. 181",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6139319
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1988,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/25/0181-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "310 Ark. 381",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1898834
      ],
      "weight": 3,
      "year": 1992,
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/310/0381-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-101",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1996,
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-403",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "c"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 443,
    "char_count": 8096,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.726,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 8.411867578422581e-08,
      "percentile": 0.4833455541230396
    },
    "sha256": "36b4fcc8fc9697290e3695ecd194ee988ae139d33f00be0c853d1ec33ce15546",
    "simhash": "1:a96e0000506c5a7b",
    "word_count": 1370
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:20.779016+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Bird and Rogers, agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "William Andrew HYDE v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "Andree Layton Roaf, Judge.\nAppellant William Hyde pled guilty to and was convicted of delivery of marijuana in August 1991. The trial court withheld imposition of sentence for five years conditioned on Hyde\u2019s good behavior and other conditions. The State filed a petition to revoke in May 1996, based on Hyde\u2019s possession of drug paraphernalia. The trial court granted the petition and sentenced Hyde to ten years\u2019 imprisonment with eight years suspended. Hyde\u2019s sole issue on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support the revocation. We affirm.\nAt the hearing on the State\u2019s petition to revoke, Officers Paul Smith and David Slaughter testified that they had received information regarding Hyde\u2019s possession and use of controlled substances at his home. The officers went to the house on May 8, 1996, approached Hyde on the front porch, and told him of the allegations made against him.\nThe officers testified that Hyde told them that he had some marijuana at his home for \u201cpersonal use\u201d and that he used it for his back problems. He also admitted having drug paraphernalia at the house. The officers then asked if they could search the house and testified that they informed Hyde that he could refuse the search. According to the officers, Hyde consented to the search and even showed them various drug paraphernalia in the residence. Officer Slaughter testified that he also found a tray that contained some marijuana seeds and a small amount of green vegetable material. Near the tray was a pair of hemostats, some burnt ends, and a pipe with burnt residue in the bowl. However, no laboratory analysis of any of the material was introduced to prove that the substances were marijuana or other controlled substance.\nAlthough Hyde claimed that he told the officers that the pipes were part of a collection, the officers denied being so told. Officer Smith testified that Hyde had numerous pipes and a \u201cwater bong,\u201d and that Hyde told him that the reason he had so many pipes was that he made them for himself and for his friends for smoking marijuana. In fact, the officers also arrested a man who came to Hyde\u2019s house during the search, when marijuana was found on him in a pat-down search.\nFor the defense, Hyde\u2019s father testified that Hyde had a pipe collection, including Indian ceremonial pipes. Hyde\u2019s wife, who was present at the time of the search, also testified about Hyde\u2019s pipe collection. She testified that there was not any marijuana in the house on the day of the search, and that the substance on the tray was herbal material that Hyde used for his back pain. Finally, Hyde testified on his own behalf and stated that he had thirty-four pipes and seven water bongs. However, he denied that any of the substances found by the officers were marijuana, and stated that there was no marijuana at the house. He testified that he told the police about his pipe collection and that the officers told him they were not interested in his pipes, only marijuana. He stated that, when the police did not find any marijuana, they got upset and decided to take some of the pipes and charge him with possession of paraphernalia instead. He testified that Officer Smith told him that it was okay that he had the pipes as long as he did not have marijuana in the house. He testified that the vegetable substance found was a combination of herbs he had purchased at a store.\nHyde\u2019s sole point on appeal is that the trial court\u2019s revocation was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. He argues that there was insufficient evidence on which to revoke his suspended imposition of sentence, because there was no evidence that he intended to use the items seized to smoke or otherwise ingest marijuana. He argues that mere possession of the pipes was not illegal, and that he had to be shown to have intended to use the pipes in an illegal manner. However, his arguments are without merit.\nArkansas Code Annotated \u00a7 5-64-403 (c)(1) (Repl. 1996) provides that it is unlawful to possess drug paraphernalia with the intent to use it to ingest or inhale a controlled substance. It is also unlawful to possess paraphernalia with the intent to deliver it under circumstances where one should reasonably know that it will be used to inhale a controlled substance. Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-403 (c)(2) (Repl. 1996). According to Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64-101 (Repl. 1996), when determining if an object is drug paraphernalia, a court should consider, among other factors, statements by the owner concerning its use, prior convictions of the owner relating to any controlled substance, and direct or circumstantial evidence of the intent to deliver the paraphernalia for an illegal use.\nIn a hearing to revoke, the burden is upon the State to prove a violation of a condition of the suspended sentence by a preponderance of the evidence; on appellate review, the trial court\u2019s findings axe upheld unless they are clearly against a preponderance of the evidence. Lemons v. State, 310 Ark. 381, 836 S.W.2d 861 (1992); Russell v. State, 25 Ark. App. 181, 753 S.W.2d 298 (1988). Since a determination of the preponderance of the evidence turns on questions of credibility and weight to given testimony, this court defers to the trial court\u2019s superior position. Lemons, supra.\nHyde relies on Crutchfield v. State, 306 Ark. 97, 812 S.W.2d 459 (1991), to support his argument for reversal. In Cmtchjield, the supreme court reversed and dismissed a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia, because there was no proof that a four-inch piece of automobile radio antenna alleged to be drug paraphernalia was intended for drug use, no proof of residue on the paraphernalia, and no drugs found on the defendant. The antenna was found on Crutchfield in a pat-down search when he was arrested for armed robbery. The supreme court said that the lack of any link to drug use left the jury to speculate that the defendant was using the antenna for a prohibited purpose. Hyde argues that his case is analogous because there was no crime lab report showing marijuana residue on the paraphernalia, or that the green vegetable material found at his house was marijuana. He contends that the court was left \u201cto mere speculation as to whether the items seized in the home were in fact used for the smoking of marijuana or were in fact used for smoking herbs.\u201d\nHowever, Hyde\u2019s reliance on Crutchfield is misplaced for several reasons. First, the preponderance of the evidence clearly supports a finding that Hyde possessed the requisite intent. The arresting officers testified that Hyde told them that he had some \u201cpersonal use\u201d marijuana at the house and that he smoked it for pain in his back. Moreover, Hyde stated that he made some of the pipes for other people, which is also a criminal offense. The trial court was also entitled to consider Hyde\u2019s previous conviction for delivery of marijuana. Second, unlike Crutchfield, Hyde was not tried for possession of drug paraphernalia; the standard for review of a revocation of probation or of a suspended sentence is preponderance of the evidence, not beyond a reasonable doubt. Third, as pointed out by the State, in Crutchfield, the supreme court, upon rehearing, found sufficient evidence to uphold the conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia if the State\u2019s expert testimony regarding the intended use of the antenna had not been excluded, and remanded the case for retrial. See Crutch-field v. State, supra, supp. op. on reh\u2019g, 306 Ark. 104, 816 S.W.2d 884 (1991). Here, the intended use of the pipes and water bongs, unlike a piece of antenna, needs no further explanation. Such items are specifically classified as drug paraphernalia by statute. See Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-64~101(v)(12)(A), 5-64-101(v)(12)](B), and 5-64-101 (v)(12)](L) (Repl. 1996).\nAffirmed.\nBird and Rogers, agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "Andree Layton Roaf, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "James R. Marschewski, for appellant.",
      "Winston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Gil Dudley, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "William Andrew HYDE v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 97-314\n953 S.W.2d 911\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division IV\nOpinion delivered October 22, 1997\nJames R. Marschewski, for appellant.\nWinston Bryant, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Gil Dudley, Asst. Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0131-01",
  "first_page_order": 159,
  "last_page_order": 164
}