{ "id": 6140436, "name": "Mitchell JONES v. STATE of Arkansas", "name_abbreviation": "Jones v. State", "decision_date": "2003-05-21", "docket_number": "CA CR 02-1123", "first_page": "229", "last_page": "236", "citations": [ { "type": "official", "cite": "82 Ark. App. 229" }, { "type": "parallel", "cite": "105 S.W.3d 835" } ], "court": { "name_abbreviation": "Ark. Ct. App.", "id": 13370, "name": "Arkansas Court of Appeals" }, "jurisdiction": { "id": 34, "name_long": "Arkansas", "name": "Ark." }, "cites_to": [ { "cite": "344 Ark. 251", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 210124 ], "weight": 3, "year": 2001, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "257" }, { "page": "771" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/344/0251-01" ] }, { "cite": "328 Ark. 388", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 50359 ], "weight": 6, "year": 1997, "pin_cites": [ { "page": "389" }, { "page": "583" } ], "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/328/0388-01" ] }, { "cite": "327 Ark. 339", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark.", "case_ids": [ 922718 ], "weight": 4, "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark/327/0339-01" ] }, { "cite": "57 Ark. App. 125", "category": "reporters:state", "reporter": "Ark. App.", "case_ids": [ 6138048 ], "weight": 2, "year": 1997, "opinion_index": 0, "case_paths": [ "/ark-app/57/0125-01" ] } ], "analysis": { "cardinality": 617, "char_count": 11850, "ocr_confidence": 0.747, "pagerank": { "raw": 1.4777765735359686e-07, "percentile": 0.6604983533789036 }, "sha256": "e1d7c3e3a2eb4026863eba2e37cc4acaf989cc2f047cc1cd18f51958f8c99108", "simhash": "1:fd4aa9a22b9eb379", "word_count": 1988 }, "last_updated": "2023-07-14T22:49:45.234835+00:00", "provenance": { "date_added": "2019-08-29", "source": "Harvard", "batch": "2018" }, "casebody": { "judges": [ "Vaught and Crabtree, JJ., agree." ], "parties": [ "Mitchell JONES v. STATE of Arkansas" ], "opinions": [ { "text": "Wendell L. Griffen, Judge.\nThis appeal arose from a criminal conviction in Pulaski County for possession of a controlled substance (marijuana) with intent to deliver, resulting in a twenty-five-year sentence. Mitchell Jones argues on appeal that the trial court abused its discretion by admitting into evidence the State\u2019s exhibits concerning the marijuana over his chain-of-custody objection, based solely on a discrepancy between the weight of the marijuana as stated in the police report and the crime lab report. We affirm.\nOn or about September 12, 2000, members of the Little Rock and North Little Rock Police Departments\u2019 drug interdiction units received information that appellant might have picked up a suspicious bag, which allegedly smelled of marijuana, from the North Little Rock bus terminal to travel by taxi cab toward the Little Rock National Airport. Once there, appellant removed his automobile from a parking lot at the airport. Ultimately, Detectives Kyle King, Todd Spafford, and Grant Humphries acted on the information and stopped appellant\u2019s vehicle. A police dog alerted the officers to the trunk of the vehicle, from which the officers seized two duffel bags containing eight bundles of marijuana, four rolled marijuana joints, and personal items.\nAt trial, appellant objected to the introduction of the seized items because he contended -that the chain of custody was not established to the necessary extent. He based his challenge on the discrepancy between the weight of the marijuana according to the officer who seized it and the weight of the marijuana according to the state crime laboratory chemist. The trial court overruled the objection because it found that there was testimony that explained the weight difference.\nSpecifically, there was testimony that Detective Humphries placed the two duffel bags in a cardboard box and weighed the entire contents of the box. Thus, Humphries arrived at a weight of approximately fifty-nine pounds. That weight included the duffel bags, the various bundles and joints of marijuana in their original packaging, as well as toiletry items, towels used to wrap the marijuana bundles, and a pair of underwear, shorts, and a shirt. Furthermore, Humphries testified that he maintained custody of the bags and all of their contents. After taking inventory of the contents of the bags, he returned the bags and their contents to the cardboard box, sealed the box, initialed the seal, and stored it in the property locker until it was taken to the state crime laboratory.\nAnother witness for the State, state crime laboratory forensic drug chemist Chris Larsen, testified that he checked the box out from a secured location where evidence is stored once it is received from the police. The chemist testified that the box was sealed when he received it. He then removed the marijuana bundles from the bags, removed their original packaging, and weighed only the marijuana substance. Thus, he arrived at a total weight of the marijuana of approximately 42.7 pounds.\nUpon cross-examination of Larsen, the following colloquy took place:\nQ Would it be common in roughly 38 days for [the marijuana] to lose almost a third of its weight by evaporation?\nA I don\u2019t really know the rate that marijuana dries out. I couldn\u2019t testify about that, but I would think it probably wouldn\u2019t lose that much.\nQ Would you say maybe a couple of ounces here, a couple of ounces there?\nA This is a lot of marijuana. I don\u2019t know how many ounces or grams it would lose in that amount of time. I really don\u2019t know.\nQ Okay. Would it surprise you to know that somehow this lost 17 pounds of marijuana somewhere down the road?\nA Would it surprise me?\nQ Yeah.\nA If it was lost?\nQ Well, they weighed in at 59 pounds.\nA Who\u2019s they?\nQ The police department. They weighed it in at 59 pounds, and you came up with 42. There\u2019d be 17 pounds missing somewhere, correct?\nA Uh huh.\nQ Okay. In a bag with some towels and stuff I don\u2019t expect that weighs more than five pounds or so. So, we\u2019re looking at probably a loss of maybe 12 pounds. Would that be possible through evaporation as Detective Humphries suggested to this jury in a matter of 38 days?\nA Not through evaporation. Probably not.\nLarsen did not make any statements regarding the weight of the bags and other personal items contained in the evidence box, as distinct from the weight of the marijuana.\nAH three officers involved in the seizure of the contraband in question testified at trial that State\u2019s Exhibits 1 and 2 were photographs of the two duffel bags containing four bundles of marijuana, discovered in the trunk of appellant\u2019s car. Detective King testified that he recognized the State\u2019s Exhibits 3-10, photographs of the bundles of marijuana. However, he also explained that the bundles appeared different in the exhibits than when they were stored because when\nyou send dope to the Crime Lab, we don\u2019t separate the bundles. We leave the bundles intact inside the bag. The Crime Lab cuts the bundles open, takes the dope out, weighs the dope, and then puts \u2019em back in different bags.\nDetective Humphries testified, with respect to Exhibits 3-10, that he recognized them as showing the marijuana bundles seized in appellant\u2019s trunk. He also stated that\n[a]s you can see where the packaging has been cut. When it\u2019s sent to the Crime Lab to be analyzed, these bundles were in this shape, but the packaging was sealed around them of this interior packaging. This outside plastic bag was not a part of it. That\u2019s how it was resealed, I believe, by the Crime Lab.\nHumphries recognized the State\u2019s Exhibit 12 as the loose marijuana and four hand-rolled marijuana cigarettes he had found in one of the bags\u2019 pockets.\nThe trial court stated, when ruling on appellant\u2019s objection, that\nthe whereabouts of [the evidence] at all times or every person who handled it is not necessary for introduction. Second of all, the testimony is in this case that it is less than what they said it was weighed at, but there is some explanations in the record as to the difference in it. In addition, there\u2019s no evidence of any actual tampering of the matter, other than the difference of this weight which has been, testimony has been given an explanation of it.\nFrom the resulting conviction appellant now brings as the sole point on appeal his challenge to the chain of custody, based on the weight discrepancy.\nChain-of-Custody Challenge Based on Weight Discrepancy\nAppellant challenges the sufficiency of the chain of custody solely on the basis of a weight discrepancy between the police report and the state crime laboratory report. We do not reverse a trial court\u2019s ruling on the admissibility of evidence absent a showing that it clearly abused its discretion. Rankin v. State, 57 Ark. App. 125, 942 S.W.2d 867 (1997). The purpose of establishing a chain of custody is to prevent the introduction of physical evidence that has been tampered with or is not authentic. Newman v. State, 327 Ark. 339, 939 S.W.2d 811 (1997). The trial court must be satisfied within a reasonable probability that the evidence has not been tampered with. Id. It is not necessary for the State to eliminate every possibility of tampering. Id. Minor uncertainties in the chain of custody are matters to be argued by counsel, but they do not render the evidence inadmissible as a matter of law. Crisco v. State, 328 Ark. 388, 943 S.W.2d 582 (1997).\nIn Guydon v. State, 344 Ark. 251, 257, 39 S.W.3d 767, 771 (2001), a case involving a very minor discrepancy, the supreme court stated that the \u201cdifference in testimony regarding the weight ofState\u2019s Exhibit 1 was .1172 ofa gram, and the difference regarding State\u2019s Exhibit 2 was .0817 of a gram.\u201d The Guydon court pointed out that the slight variation in the weight of the substance could have resulted from the differing sensitivity in the scales used by the officer and the chemist. Id.\nIn Crisco v. State, supra, relied upon by appellant, the supreme court reversed and remanded Crisco\u2019s conviction because of the discrepancies in the officer\u2019s and the chemist\u2019s descriptions of the controlled substance involved. The officer described the substance as an \u201coff-white powder,\u201d while the chemist described the drug as a \u201ctan, rock-like substance.\u201d 328 Ark. at 389, 943 S.W.2d at 583. The State, in that case, argued that the officer\u2019s identification pf the envelope containing the drug was sufficient. Id. The supreme court disagreed and held that the State had to do more to establish the authenticity of the drug tested than merely trace the route of the envelope containing the substance. Id.\nIn this case, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion when it admitted the relevant exhibits concerning the marijuana seized in appellant\u2019s trunk. The existing discrepancy between the weights given by the police officers and the chemist admittedly is considerable, but the trial court also had before it testimony explaining the difference. The police weighed not only the marijuana, but the bags with all its contents, including some clothes, towels, and a cardboard box. While we would appreciate concrete information before us concerning how much the other items, such as the bags and towels, weighed, apart from the marijuana, we remain mindful of the fact that the State did not need to eliminate every possibility of tampering. Newman v. State, supra. The trial court merely had to be satisfied within a reasonable probability that no one had tampered with the evidence. Id.\nMoreover, we point out that neither Guydon v. State, supra, nor Crisco v. State, supra, involve comparable facts. In Guydon, the police weighed the contraband itself, just as the crime laboratory did later, and the question on appeal essentially became whether the existing weight discrepancy could be explained satisfactorily by the use of different scales in the field and in the laboratory. In the present case, the police weighed everything together with the contraband, while the crime laboratory weighed only the contraband. Furthermore, in Crisco, the discrepancy was one of description, not weight. Here, we do not have any such discrepancy. Finally, the particular holding of Crisco, namely that the State had to do more to establish the authenticity of the drug tested than merely trace the route of the envelope containing the substance, upon which appellant seems to rely, does not avail him of any relief because the State did do more.\nSpecifically, the trial court had available the testimony of Detective Humphries who inventoried the bags, sealed the cardboard box containing all the items seized, and locked the evidence up until it was moved to the state crime lab. The chemist testified that the cardboard box was sealed when he picked it up from the laboratory\u2019s evidence locker. The trial court also heard testimony to the effect that the police, when inventorying bags containing marijuana bundles, customarily do not open marijuana bundles. Based on the record before us, we are unable to hold that the trial court abused its discretion. Thus, we affirm.\nAffirmed.\nVaught and Crabtree, JJ., agree.\nAppellant did not include a copy of his notice of appeal in his addendum or abstract, as required under Ark. R. Sup. Ct. 4-2(a)(8) (2002). Only a review of the record reveals that appellant filed a notice of appeal on July 22, 2002. The judgment and commitment order was dated July 18, 2002, and filed July 25, 2002. Pursuant to Ark. R. App. P.\u2014Crim. 2(b)(1) (2002), the appeal is thus timely, albeit not properly documented on appeal.", "type": "majority", "author": "Wendell L. Griffen, Judge." } ], "attorneys": [ "The Cannon Law Firm, P.L.C., by: David R. Cannon, for appellant.", "Mike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Misty Wilson Borkowski, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." ], "corrections": "", "head_matter": "Mitchell JONES v. STATE of Arkansas\nCA CR 02-1123\n105 S.W.3d 835\nCourt of Appeals of Arkansas Division II\nOpinion delivered May 21, 2003\nThe Cannon Law Firm, P.L.C., by: David R. Cannon, for appellant.\nMike Beebe, Att\u2019y Gen., by: Misty Wilson Borkowski, Ass\u2019t Att\u2019y Gen., for appellee." }, "file_name": "0229-01", "first_page_order": 255, "last_page_order": 262 }