{
  "id": 6138209,
  "name": "Mashombe Shawn BROCK v. STATE of Arkansas",
  "name_abbreviation": "Brock v. State",
  "decision_date": "2000-04-26",
  "docket_number": "CA CR 99-714",
  "first_page": "107",
  "last_page": "110",
  "citations": [
    {
      "type": "official",
      "cite": "70 Ark. App. 107"
    },
    {
      "type": "parallel",
      "cite": "14 S.W.3d 908"
    }
  ],
  "court": {
    "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.",
    "id": 13370,
    "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals"
  },
  "jurisdiction": {
    "id": 34,
    "name_long": "Arkansas",
    "name": "Ark."
  },
  "cites_to": [
    {
      "cite": "60 Ark. App. 206",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6139604
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "209"
        },
        {
          "page": "767"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/60/0206-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "63 Ark. App. 59",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6136846
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "64-65"
        },
        {
          "page": "835"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/63/0059-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "331 Ark. 334",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark.",
      "case_ids": [
        1604743
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1998,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "349-50"
        },
        {
          "page": "343"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark/331/0334-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "471 U.S. 409",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6203741
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1985,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "414"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/471/0409-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "475 U.S. 387",
      "category": "reporters:federal",
      "reporter": "U.S.",
      "case_ids": [
        6203799
      ],
      "year": 1986,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "citing Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 (1985)"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/us/475/0387-01"
      ]
    },
    {
      "cite": "Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-310",
      "category": "laws:leg_statute",
      "reporter": "Ark. Code Ann.",
      "year": 1997,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "page": "(c)(l)",
          "parenthetical": "according to Goforth, the codification of those principles"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0
    },
    {
      "cite": "27 Ark. App. 150",
      "category": "reporters:state",
      "reporter": "Ark. App.",
      "case_ids": [
        6139230
      ],
      "weight": 2,
      "year": 1989,
      "pin_cites": [
        {
          "parenthetical": "relying on federal constitutional principles"
        },
        {
          "parenthetical": "relying on federal constitutional principles"
        }
      ],
      "opinion_index": 0,
      "case_paths": [
        "/ark-app/27/0150-01"
      ]
    }
  ],
  "analysis": {
    "cardinality": 321,
    "char_count": 5005,
    "ocr_confidence": 0.773,
    "pagerank": {
      "raw": 2.643706506388976e-07,
      "percentile": 0.8233628678737641
    },
    "sha256": "2aaf561feddb9421386a08074618676f9a4e180566e946f9645477444c7c044e",
    "simhash": "1:777b916843e11ef1",
    "word_count": 768
  },
  "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:52:11.491630+00:00",
  "provenance": {
    "date_added": "2019-08-29",
    "source": "Harvard",
    "batch": "2018"
  },
  "casebody": {
    "judges": [
      "Jennings and Roaf, JJ., agree."
    ],
    "parties": [
      "Mashombe Shawn BROCK v. STATE of Arkansas"
    ],
    "opinions": [
      {
        "text": "JOSEPHINE Linker Hart, Judge.\nAppellant, Mashombe Shawn Brock, appeals from the circuit court\u2019s revocation of his suspended sentences and its imposition of four years\u2019 imprisonment based on the State\u2019s allegation that, in violation of the conditions of his suspended sentences, he committed the crimes of possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver and second-degree battery. Citing Goforth v. State, 27 Ark. App. 150, 767 S.W.2d 537 (1989)(relying on federal constitutional principles), and Ark. Code Ann. \u00a7 5-4-310(c)(l) (Repl. 1997)(according to Goforth, the codification of those principles), he argues on appeal that his right to confront witnesses against him was violated when a witness for the State was permitted to testify that he had received information from a confidential informant that appellant was selling methamphetamine. Because the testimony was not admitted to prove the truth of the matter asserted, we conclude there was no violation of his right to confront witnesses and affirm.\nAt the revocation hearing, Corporal Shannon Binyon, a narcotics detective with the Fort Smith Police Department, testified that he contacted appellant after he was told by a reliable confidential informant that appellant was selling methamphetamine \u201cat the Total Store at 19th and Grand\u201d and was in possession of \u201ca green organizer\u201d containing \u201cseveral quarter papers of methamphetamine.\u201d Appellant objected to this testimony as hearsay and argued that its introduction denied him the right to confront witnesses. The trial court overruled the objection. Binyon further testified that he and other officers contacted appellant at the store and found him in possession of a green organizer containing methamphetamine. The methamphetamine was packaged in seven individually sealed plastic bags. Binyon testified that the methamphetamine was packaged for resale as \u201cquarter papers to sell for $25.00 each.\u201d\nIn addressing appellant\u2019s claim that he was denied his right to confront witnesses when Binyon testified regarding what he was told by the confidential informant, we note that the United States Supreme Court has held that \u201cadmission of non-hearsay \u2018raises no Confrontation Clause concerns.\u2019 \u201d United States v. Inadi, 475 U.S. 387, 398 n.11 (1986)(citing Tennessee v. Street, 471 U.S. 409, 414 (1985)). \u201cCross-examination regarding such statements would contribute nothing to Confrontation Clause interests.\u201d Id. Given that the Confrontation Clause is not violated by the introduction of non-hearsay testimony, we must determine whether the challenged testimony was hearsay.\n\u201c \u2018Hearsay\u2019 is a statement, other than one made by the declarant while testifying at the trial or hearing, offered in evidence to prove the truth of the matter asserted.\u201d Ark. R. Evid. 801(c) (1999). An out-of-court statement is not hearsay if it is offered, not for the truth of the matter asserted, but to show the basis for the witness\u2019s action. See, e.g., Sanford v. State, 331 Ark. 334, 349-50, 962 S.W.2d 335, 343 (1998). Here, the challenged testimony was not introduced for the truth of the matter asserted, that is, that appellant was selling methamphetamine at that particular location, but instead to show why Binyon contacted appellant. We note that rather than alleging appellant was delivering methamphetamine, the State alleged in its petition to revoke that appellant was in possession of methamphetamine with the intent to deliver. The challenged testimony, we conclude, was not hearsay.\nBecause the challenged testimony was not hearsay, cross-examination of the confidential informant would have contributed little to appellant\u2019s interest in confronting witnesses against him. Thus, we conclude that appellant\u2019s right, based either on state or federal grounds, to confront witnesses against him, was not violated by the introduction of non-hearsay testimony at the revocation hearing. Given this, the court did not commit error by allowing introduction of the challenged testimony.\nFurthermore, denial of an accused\u2019s right to confront witnesses may be harmless error. See Caswell v. State, 63 Ark. App. 59, 64-65, 973 S.W.2d 832, 835 (1998). Because the State had to prove only one violation to establish that appellant violated his suspended sentence, see Ramsey v. State, 60 Ark. App. 206, 209, 959 S.W.2d 765, 767 (1998), and because appellant did not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence to support the State\u2019s separate allegation that appellant committed the crime of second-degree battery \u2014 a violation unrelated to the information garnered from the confidential informant \u2014 we could also affirm the revocation of his suspended sentence on the basis that any error committed was harmless.\nAffirmed.\nJennings and Roaf, JJ., agree.",
        "type": "majority",
        "author": "JOSEPHINE Linker Hart, Judge."
      }
    ],
    "attorneys": [
      "John Joplin, for appellant.",
      "Mark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Valerie L. Kelly, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
    ],
    "corrections": "",
    "head_matter": "Mashombe Shawn BROCK v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 99-714\n14 S.W.3d 908\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division III\nOpinion delivered April 26, 2000\nJohn Joplin, for appellant.\nMark Pryor, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Valerie L. Kelly, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee."
  },
  "file_name": "0107-01",
  "first_page_order": 137,
  "last_page_order": 140
}