Marcus Hubbard v. State of Arkansas

Annotate this Case
ar00-291

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

JOHN JENNINGS, JUDGE

DIVISION I

CACR00-291

October 4, 2000

MARCUS HUBBARD APPEAL FROM POPE COUNTY

APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT

VS.

HONORABLE JOHN S. PATTERSON,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

A jury found Marcus Hubbard guilty of manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine) and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to ten years and four years, respectively. Appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict for either conviction. We disagree and affirm.

The Arkansas State Police obtained a warrant to search the residence of Joey Payton where they expected to find a methamphet amine lab. When they arrived to execute the warrant, officersnoticed an ammonia odor associated with the manufacturing of methamphetamine. Pope County Sheriff Jay Winters testified that he saw appellant inside the room adjacent to the garage where the methamphetamine was being cooked. He saw appellant run back toward the garage before he was tackled by another officer.

Ruby Ross from the State Crime Lab testified that she obtained appellant's fingerprint on one of the cans of starter fluid but pointed out that fingerprints cannot be dated.

Appellant testified that he had been at Payton's residence working on his van. He had fallen asleep on the sofa and when he awoke, he went to the garage to look for Payton. He then realized Payton was making methamphetamine because of the strong odor, so appellant stuck around hoping to get some for free. He claimed that he did not assist in the manufacturing of the methamphetamine and that Payton never asked for help. He stated that he did not remember ever touching one of the cans of starter fluid but that he often used it to clean and to remove moisture from wires when working on his vehicle. Appellant claimed that when the officers burst in with guns he was startled and may have stumbled backwards but that he did not have to be tackled.

Appellant argues that the State's only evidence is that he was in the area where methamphetamine was being manufactured, that he is a user of the drug, and that his fingerprint was found on a can of starter fluid probably used in the manufacturing process. Appellant contends that the State's own expert stated that the manufacturing process was a simple one such that more than one person would be unnecessary. Finally, appellant maintains that because fingerprints cannot be dated, he could have touched the starter fluid can a couple of days earlier while working on his van.

The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, either direct or circumstantial. Smith v. State, 68 Ark. App. 106, 3 S.W.3d 712 (1999). In making this determination, we view that evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only that evidence which tends to support the verdict. Killian v. State, 60 Ark. App. 127, 959 S.W.2d 432 (1998). Circumstantial evidence can provide the basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Williams v. State, 338 Ark. 97, 991 S.W.2d 565 (1999). The question of whether the circumstantial evidence indeed excludes every other possibility is to be resolved by the jury. Wetherington v. State, 319 Ark. 37, 889 S.W.2d 34 (1994). Although the appellant relies heavily on Standridge v. State, 310 Ark. 408, 837 S.W.2d 447 (1992), that case is distin guishable. The only evidence in Standridge which linked the defendant to the manufacturing of marijuana was his fingerprint that was obtained from a plastic cup found six to fifteen feet fromthe edge of ninety-three marijuana plants where a tent had been erected. The Arkansas Supreme Court held that this was insuffi cient evidence to prove the defendant was even at the crime scene much less engaged in the manufacture of marijuana. Here, however, appellant was at Payton's house while methamphetamine was being cooked, and his fingerprint was found on an essential ingredient used in making methamphetamine-the can of starter fluid. There was testimony indicating that this particular can was empty and had holes punched in it, which strongly suggests that it was actually used in the manufacturing process. The action of fleeing from the scene of the crime is relevant to the issue of guilt. Moore v. State, 58 Ark. App. 120, 947 S.W.2d 395 (1997). The Sheriff testified that an officer tackled appellant who had gotten perhaps fifteen feet from where he was originally standing. The jury was not required to believe appellant's testimony that he merely "back-peddled" a few feet because he was startled. On this evidence, the trier of fact could reasonably conclude that appellant manufactured methamphetamine and possessed drug paraphernalia without resorting to speculation or conjecture.

Affirmed.

Hart and Griffen, JJ., agree.

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.