Brown v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 303
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
CACR09-1136
No.
Opinion Delivered
MELVIN MARLTON BROWN
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
April 7, 2010
APPEAL FROM THE OUACHITA
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-08-188-3]
HONORABLE EDWIN A. KEATON,
JUDGE
AFFIRMED
WAYMOND M. BROWN, Judge
Appellant Melvin Brown was convicted by a Ouachita County jury of four offenses:
(1) possession of a controlled substance, crack cocaine, with the intent to deliver, (2)
maintaining a drug premises, (3) simultaneous possession of drugs and firearm, and (4)
possession of firearm by certain persons. He was sentenced to sixty years in the Arkansas
Department of Correction. On appeal, Brown contends that the trial court erred in denying
his motion for a directed verdict.1 We affirm.
Brown’s jury trial took place on June 25, 2009. Agent Spells of the 13th District Drug
Task Force, testified that on August 1, 2008, he obtained a search warrant to search Brown’s
Brown only appeals his conviction for possession of a controlled substance, crack cocaine,
with intent to deliver.
1
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 303
home. The officers entered Brown’s home and found Brown in the northwest bedroom.
In the bedroom with Brown, the officers found crack cocaine and a firearm. According to the
crime lab analysis the total weight of the crack cocaine was 6.8653 grams. The crack cocaine
was inside a white pill bottle packaged in two small baggies.
Patricia Brown, Brown’s wife, testified that she was familiar with the firearm that was
in the house. She said that it was there for her protection because Brown was always away
for work. Patricia testified that she was present at the time of the search but was not living
in the home. She and Brown were having problems and were separated at the time. Patricia
stated that part of the reason they were separated was because of Brown’s addiction to crack
cocaine. She said that Brown has had a drug problem for fifteen years.
Natoyia Green, Brown’s step-daughter, testified that she has known Brown for about
fifteen years. Green stated that she has seen Brown use crack cocaine only once in the fifteen
years that she has known him.
At the close of the evidence, the defense moved for a directed verdict on the basis that
the State failed to prove Brown possessed cocaine with the intent to deliver. The court denied
the motion and Brown was sentenced to sixty years in the Arkansas Department of
Correction. Brown filed a timely appeal.
On appeal, Brown argues that the State’s evidence does not support his conviction of
possession of cocaine with the intent to deliver. He further argues that the testimony of his
wife and step-daughter established that he had an addiction to crack cocaine and possessed the
cocaine for his personal use.
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 303
When a defendant makes a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal, we
view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State.2 The test for determining the
sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct
or circumstantial.3 Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion
one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture.4 Only evidence supporting the verdict
will be considered, and the conviction will be affirmed if there is substantial evidence to
support it.5
Circumstantial evidence may constitute sufficient evidence to support a
conviction, but it must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the
accused.6
The question of whether the circumstantial evidence excludes every other
reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence is for the jury to decide.7
Arkansas Code Annotated § 5-64-401(d) (Supp. 2009) creates a statutory presumption
that the possession of more than one gram of cocaine demonstrates an intent to deliver. In
the present case, Agent Spells testified that over six grams of cocaine were found at Brown’s
residence inside a white pill bottle packaged in two small baggies. Brown possessed an
amount of crack cocaine in excess of the presumptive one gram, and he failed to rebut that
presumption at the trial court level.
Patricia Brown testified that the appellant had a strong addiction to crack cocaine and
Baughman v. State, 353 Ark. 1, 4, 110 S.W.3d 740, 742 (2003).
Id.
4
Id.
5
Id.
6
Whitt v. State, 365 Ark. 580, 581, 232 S.W.3d 459, 461 (2006).
7
Id.
2
3
-3-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 303
that is why it was in his possession. However, Agent Spells testified that officers found no
crack pipes or any other drug paraphernalia at Brown’s house. Additionally, Brown’s stepdaughter testified that in fifteen years she has only seen Brown use crack cocaine once.
The State presented substantial evidence that Brown possessed the crack cocaine with
the intent to deliver. Although Brown presented the testimony of his wife and step-daughter,
he failed to rebut the statutory presumption.
conviction and we affirm.
Affirmed.
VAUGHT, C.J., agrees.
PITTMAN, J., concurs.
-4-
Substantial evidence supports Brown’s
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.
