Kenneth Allan Britt v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Judge Miller’s unpublished opinion for 11­7­07 DIVISION II CACR07­103 November 7, 2007 KENNETH ALLAN BRITT APPELLANT AN APPEAL FROM THE LONOKE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [CR05­28] v. STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE LANCE L. APPELLEE HANSHAW, JUDGE AFFIRMED  Appellant  Kenneth  Allan  Britt  appeals  his  convictions  for  manufacturing  methamphetamine,  possessing  drug  paraphernalia  with  intent  to  manufacture­  methamphetamine, and fleeing.  We affirm.  At Britt’s September 7, 2006 jury trial, Cabot Police Officer Brad Wilkerson testified  that on October 11, 2004, he attempted to stop a speeding vehicle by pulling in behind the  vehicle with his blue lights on.   The car sped up to as much as ninety miles per hour as  someone threw items from the window.  Wilkerson ran the car’s license plate and it was  registered to Britt.  Ultimately, the car traveled off the road and into the woods, and hit a  tree.  A man jumped from the driver’s seat and ran into the woods.  Sarina Simpson, who was  sitting in the passenger’s seat, told Wilkerson that Britt was the driver.  Simpson testified that she was riding with Britt on October 11, 2004, when he refused  to stop for the police.  While speeding to evade the police, Britt handed her some items to  throw out of the window.  Although Britt crashed the car into a tree and fled the scene,  Simpson did not run because she felt she had not done anything wrong.  Initially, when asked  who was driving the car, she provided the police with a fake name; but she later told them  the truth.  Simpson admitted that she had used Britt’s car on occasion and that she had used  drugs on the day in question.  She also testified that the State initially filed charges against  her but later dropped the charges.  Cabot Police Detective John Dodd testified that, on October 11, 2004, he responded  to a call of a suspected meth lab.  He went to the scene and found items in the trunk of Britt’s  car  indicating  that  the  car  was  being  used  to  manufacture  methamphetamine.    When  he  served Britt with the arrest warrant at Simpson’s residence on January 25, 2005, he found  Britt hiding between the mattress and box springs of a bed.  When searched, Britt had a green  vegetable substance and eight bags of an off­white powder in his front pocket.  Deborah Pumphrey of the Arkansas State Crime Lab testified that the items found in  Britt’s car were commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine.  She performed tests on  the items, which revealed the presence of methamphetamine, as well as phosphorous and  iodine.  North Little Rock Police Officer Shay Cobbs testified that on September 15, 2004,  Simpson was apprehended in Target for trying to steal a box of pseudoephedrine, while Britt 2  waited for Simpson in the driver’s seat of the car.  As a result of a search of the car, Britt was  convicted of possession of methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia.  Jacksonville Police Detective Kimberly Lett testified that she was called to Simpson’s  house on January 25, 2005, to investigate a potential meth lab.  A search of the residence  produced evidence that methamphetamine was being manufactured there.  Furthermore, a  duffle bag containing items used to manufacture methamphetamine was found in the trunk  of  Simpson’s  car.  As  a  result  of  the  search,  Britt  was  convicted  of  possessing  methamphetamine with intent to deliver.  Britt moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State’s case.  His motion was  denied.  In his case­in­chief, Britt offered the testimony of his sister, Marla Lee Foreman.  Foreman testified that Simpson called her on October 11, 2004, stating that she had wrecked  Britt’s  car and that he was going to kill her.  Britt also offered the testimony of Connie  Darlene Clay Henderson, who stated that Simpson told her that she and another man wrecked  Britt’s car on October 11, 2004.  Henderson further testified that Simpson said that she did  not give the other person’s name because she was afraid Britt would get mad.  Britt rested and then renewed his motion for a directed verdict. He argued that there  was insufficient evidence to corroborate the testimony of Simpson.  The motion, however,  was denied and the jury found Britt guilty and sentenced him to twenty years in prison.  On appeal, Britt argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for directed  verdict.  A directed verdict motion is treated as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. 3  See  Barnes  v.  State,  94  Ark.  App.  321,  230  S.W.3d  311  (2006).  In  challenges  to  the  sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and  consider only if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict.  Boveia v. State, 94 Ark.  App. 252, 228 S.W.3d 550 (2006).  Substantial evidence, whether direct or indirect, is that  which is forceful enough to compel reasonable minds to reach a  conclusion one way or  another without resorting to speculation or conjecture.  Id.  Britt argues that Simpson was an accomplice and that, without her testimony, the  evidence  was  insufficient  to  find  him  guilty.  Britt  relies  on  Ark.  Code  Ann.  §  16­89­  111(e)(1)(A)  (1987),  which  provides  that  a  felony  conviction  cannot  be  based  upon  the  testimony of an accomplice unless it is corroborated by other evidence tending to connect  the defendant to the commission of the offense.  Whether Simpson was an accomplice was  disputed.  Furthermore, whether a witness is an accomplice is a question for the jury.  Moser  v. State, 266 Ark. 200, 583 S.W.2d 15 (1979).  Therefore, the trial court correctly denied  Britt’s motion for directed verdict and submitted this issue to the jury.  Britt next argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of prior drug­related  convictions pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) because the probative value of this evidence  was  outweighed  by  undue  prejudice  to  him.    Britt,  however,  failed  to  object  to  Officer  Cobbs’s testimony regarding his prior arrest.  Therefore, this argument is not preserved for  appellate review.  See Alexander v. State, 335 Ark. 131, 983 S.W.2d 110 (1998).  Next, Britt argues that the trial court erred by admitting evidence of a subsequent  drug­ related conviction pursuant to Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) because the probative value of this 4  evidence was outweighed by undue prejudice to him. The admission of evidence under Rule  404(b) is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will not be disturbed absent a  manifest abuse of discretion.  Hernandez v. State, 331 Ark. 301, 962 S.W.2d 756 (1998).  Moreover, we defer to the trial court to determine whether the prejudicial effect of evidence  outweighs its probative value.  Saul v. State, 365 Ark. 77, 225 S.W.3d 373 (2006).  Indeed,  the admission or rejection of evidence is left to the sound discretion of the trial court and will  not be reversed absent an abuse of discretion.  Davis v. State, 362 Ark. 34, 207 S.W.3d 474  (2005).  While Rule 404(b) specifically excludes evidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts to  prove the character of a person in order to show that he acted in conformity therewith, the  rule does allow the admission of evidence of other wrongs, crimes, or acts to prove “motive,  opportunity,  intent,  preparation,  plan,  knowledge,  identity,  or  absence  of  mistake  or  accident.”  Ark. R. Evid. 404(b).  Britt’s subsequent conviction involved a crime similar to  the one at issue here and the trial court was permitted to admit this evidence for the purposes  set forth in Rule 404(b).  Therefore, we cannot say that the trial court abused its discretion  in admitting the subsequent conviction into evidence.  In  Britt’s  final  argument,  he  asserts  that  the  trial  court  erred  by  admitting  into  evidence a letter he wrote to Simpson while he was awaiting trial.  He argues that the letter’s  probative value is outweighed by undue prejudice to him.  Britt, however, failed to object  to the prejudicial effect of the letter at trial.  Therefore, this argument is not preserved.  Affirmed. 5  HART and GLOVER, JJ., agree. 6 

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.