Mickey Joseph DeClercq v. State of Arkansas

 Annotate this Case
Download PDF
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION  DIVISION IV  CACR07­433  DECEMBER  5, 2007  MICKEY JOSEPH DECLERCQ  APPELLANT  APPEAL  FROM  THE  PULASKI  COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FOURTH  DIVISION,  [NO. CR2006­2691]  V. HON. JOHN W. LANGSTON,  JUDGE  STATE OF ARKANSAS  APPELLEE  AFFIRMED  Mickey DeClercq was convicted in a bench trial for manufacture of methamphetamine  and  possession  of  paraphernalia  with  intent  to  manufacture  methamphetamine.    He  was  sentenced to ten years’ imprisonment with three years suspended for each conviction, the  sentences to be served concurrently. On appeal he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence  to support the convictions, arguing that the State failed to prove his presence at the site of  the  methamphetamine  lab.    We  hold  that  the  evidence  was  sufficient,  and  we  affirm  DeClercq’s convictions.  The  test  for  determining the  sufficiency  of  the  evidence  is  whether  the  verdict  is  supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial.  Price v. State, 365 Ark. 25, 223  S.W.3d  817  (2006).    Evidence  is  substantial  if  it  is  of  sufficient  force  and  character  to  compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture. Id.  On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, considering  only that evidence that supports the verdict.  Id.  Credibility determinations are made by the  trier  of  fact,  which  is  free  to  believe  the  prosecution’s  version  of  events  rather  than  the  defendant’s. See, e.g., Alexander v. State, 78 Ark. App. 56, 77 S.W.3d 544 (2002).  Here, the State’s evidence included testimony by Sharla Jahns, who was DeClercq’s  girlfriend at the time of these crimes, and by Arkansas State Crime Laboratory employees.  Jahns  testified  that  the  following  events  occurred  on  March  15,  2005.    Jahns  rented  a  Jacksonville motel room, telling the clerk that only one person would be staying in it.  Jahns,  DeClercq, and Mitch Harper actually had decided to rent the room the previous day and had  packed the ingredients of a methamphetamine lab into a suitcase. At the motel they unloaded  personal items and the meth lab from DeClercq’s truck, with Declercq helping to unload the  lab items.  DeClercq directed Jahns and Harper to purchase more camp fuel, an ingredient  used in manufacturing methamphetamine, and they did so.  After Jahns and Harper returned  from the grocery store with the fuel, she observed DeClercq handling items that were part  of the lab.  The group left the room without checking out, leaving items behind.  When they  thought that the police had been called, DeClercq said to leave.  At trial Jahns identified more than a dozen State’s exhibits as photographs of items  used in the manufacturing of methamphetamine.  She identified pictures of the fuel that she  had given DeClercq in the motel room and pictures of jars and an electric skillet that had  been brought into the room.  She testified, “The electric skillet is . . . used in manufacturing  meth, to cook it.  . . . On [March 15] I saw Mickey in possession of that skillet.”  She said ­2­  CACR07­433  that she used methamphetamine that she got from a coffee filter in the room.  When asked,  “Where did you get that?”  She answered, “From Mickey.”  She said that another of the  State’s photographs showed “one of [those] coffee filters.”  Bobby Humphries, a latent fingerprint examiner with the State Crime Laboratory,  testified  that  fingerprints  lifted  from  jars  in  the  room  matched  DeClercq’s  fingerprints.  Jennifer Perry, a forensic chemist at the laboratory,  testified that methamphetamine was  found in several items from the room.  At least one of the jars had been identified by Jahns  as being purchased for the manufacturing of methamphetamine and having been brought into  the motel room.  DeClercq’s argument on appeal goes to the credibility of Jahns’s testimony, which  was a matter for the trial court to determine.  We hold that her testimony and the fingerprints  lifted from items in the room constitute substantial evidence to place DeClercq at the scene  of  the  methamphetamine  lab  there.    Thus,  his  convictions  for  the  manufacture  of  methamphetamine  and  possession  of  paraphernalia  with  intent  to  manufacture  methamphetamine are affirmed.  Affirmed.  PITTMAN, C.J., and ROBBINS, J., agree. ­3­  CACR07­433 

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.