Conneal Buckhanna v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
LARRY D. VAUGHT, JUDGE
DIVISION III
CACR06-1488
August 29, 2007
CONNEAL BUCKHANNA
APPELLANT
V.
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[CR-2006-1178]
HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON,
CIRCUIT JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEES
AFFIRMED
Appellant Conneal Buckhanna was convicted of possession of a controlled substance
and possession of drug paraphernalia. He was sentenced to two thirty-year terms of
imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction, to run concurrently. Buckhanna
appeals his convictions arguing that the trial court erred in allowing the State to offer into
evidence testimony about the street value of the cocaine that was found in his possession
upon his arrest. We affirm.
On February 12, 2006, Little Rock Police responded to a disturbance call. Upon
arriving at the scene, the officers learned that Buckhanna was the subject of the disturbance.
Officer Tim Pope testified that he approached Buckhanna to “pat him down for weapons and
officer safety” and found “a small baggie sticking out of the side of his pocket,” which
Officer Pope believed contained crack cocaine. Officer Pope then conducted a more thorough
search of Buckhanna and found a glass pipe deeper in his pocket. Officer Pope testified that
a glass pipe is typically used to ingest crack cocaine. The State introduced testimony from
a forensic chemist, employed by the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory, who confirmed that
the baggie contained 5.5 grams of crack cocaine and that the pipe had crack cocaine residue
on it.
Little Rock Police Department Narcotics Officer Clark Sheffield testified that after
Buckhanna was taken into custody, he read Buckhanna the Miranda Rights Form. Buckhanna
waived his Miranda rights and gave a verbal statement. In his statement, Buckhanna said that
he gave a woman, who was purchasing drugs for herself, sixty-five dollars to purchase some
drugs for him, which he smoked. Buckhanna stated that a commotion occurred, the woman
dropped her drugs, and he picked them up.
At trial, the State asked Officer Sheffield to identify the street value of 5.5 grams of
crack cocaine; this inquiry received a relevance objection from Buckhanna. The State
responded that the question was relevant in that Buckhanna, in his statement, contended that
he only paid sixty-five dollars for drugs when the evidence showed he had more than sixtyfive dollars of drugs in his possession. The trial court found that the question was relevant
and overruled the objection. Officer Sheffield proceeded to testify that 5.5 grams of crack
cocaine had a street value of $500.
2
Buckhanna was the only defense witness at trial. The jury convicted Buckhanna of
possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. He appeals his
convictions, arguing solely that the trial court erred in allowing the State to offer into
evidence testimony about the street value of the crack cocaine in his possession. He argues
that this testimony was irrelevant as Buckhanna was only charged with possession and that
such evidence was overwhelmingly prejudicial.
“Relevant evidence” means evidence having any tendency to make the existence of
any fact that is of consequence to the determination of the action more probable or less
probable than it would be without the evidence. Ark. R. Evid. 401. Although all relevant
evidence is admissible, even relevant evidence can be excluded if its probative value is
substantially outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice or confusion of the issues. Ark.
R. Evid. 403. Trial courts have broad discretion in deciding evidentiary issues, including the
admissibility of evidence under Rule 403, and those decisions will not be reversed absent an
abuse of discretion. Jones v. State, 340 Ark. 390, 10 S.W.3d 449 (2000).
We hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in allowing the testimony of
Officer Sheffield that the 5.5 grams of crack cocaine found in the possession of Buckhanna
had a street value of $500. First, such evidence was relevant.1 The testimony in question
refutes and impeaches the out-of-court statement of Buckhanna who claimed that he only
1
Even Buckhanna, in his brief on appeal, concedes to the “minimal” relevance of
Officer Sheffield’s testimony on this issue.
3
paid sixty-five dollars for his drugs.2 Moreover, under Rule 403 of the Arkansas Rules of
Evidence, the probative value of Officer Sheffield’s testimony is not substantially
outweighed by the danger of unfair prejudice. In fact, in this case, the testimony about the
street value of the drugs found in Buckhanna’s possession is not prejudicial at all. The
charges against him were for possession of drugs and drug paraphernalia. Buckhanna
confessed multiple times at trial that he possessed the drugs.
Buckhanna’s argument that the testimony about the street value of the drugs in his
possession was prejudicial in that it unfairly characterized him as a drug dealer, rather than
a drug user, must fail. Buckhanna, at trial, characterized himself as a drug dealer. He testified
that he had two prior convictions for possession of controlled substances with the intent to
deliver (along with three other prior convictions for possession of a controlled substance).
A review of the evidence in the instant case reveals that the testimony concerning the
street value of the crack cocaine found in the possession of Buckhanna was relevant and that
the probative value of that testimony was not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not abuse its discretion in admitting this testimony,
and accordingly, we affirm.
Affirmed.
2
The timing of the State’s offer of Officer Sheffield’s testimony is also of
significance on the issue of relevance. The testimony of Officer Sheffield was offered by
the State, and admitted into evidence by the trial court, before Buckhanna testified at trial
and confessed to the charge of possession of a controlled substance.
4
G LADWIN and G RIFFEN, JJ., agree.
5
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.
