Slade v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 406
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION III
CACR09-966
No.
Opinion Delivered
May 12, 2010
KENNETH LEE SLADE
APPELLANT
APPEAL FROM THE SALINE
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
[NO. CR-2008-528-3]
V.
HONORABLE GRISHAM PHILLIPS,
JUDGE
STATE OF ARKANSAS
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, Judge
Appellant was tried by a jury and convicted of manufacturing marijuana. As a repeat
drug offender, he was fined $50,000 and sentenced to sixteen years’ imprisonment. On
appeal, he argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict of
acquittal. We find no error, and we affirm.
A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Nelson
v. State, 365 Ark. 314, 229 S.W.3d 35 (2006). In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence
on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, considering only the
evidence that supports the verdict, and affirm if the verdict is supported by substantial
evidence. Id. Substantial evidence is that which is forceful enough to compel a conclusion
one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. Credibility of the witnesses is a
matter within the sole province of the jury. Sanford v. State, 331 Ark. 334, 962 S.W.2d 335
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 406
(1998).
Appellant was convicted of a Class C felony violation of Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64401(a) (Supp. 2007), which prohibits unauthorized manufacture of a controlled substance.
Propagation of marijuana constitutes manufacture. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-101(16)(A) (Supp.
2007). Marijuana is a Schedule VI controlled substance. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-215(a)(1)
(Supp. 2007). Manufacture of less than ten pounds of marijuana subjects the offender to a
maximum sentence of ten years’ imprisonment and a maximum fine of $25,000. Ark. Code
Ann. § 5-64-401(a)(4)(A) (Supp. 2007). The authorized term of imprisonment and fine may
be doubled for persons, such as appellant, who are convicted of a second or subsequent
offense. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-408 (Repl. 2005).
Appellant asserts that there is no substantial evidence to support his conviction because
there was inconsistent testimony regarding the amount of marijuana found growing on his
property and whether plastic bags containing marijuana were found. He argues that the jury
could have reached two equally reasonable conclusions based on the disputed testimony and
that the evidence, therefore, was not substantial according to Gregory v. State, 341 Ark. 243,
15 S.W.3d 690 (2000). We do not agree.
The rule that substantial evidence must exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than
the guilt of the accused applies only to convictions based wholly on circumstantial evidence.
Ayers v. State, 247 Ark. 174, 176–77, 444 S.W.2d 695, 696–97 (1969). When the State’s case
is made up entirely of circumstantial evidence, our review of evidentiary sufficiency requires
-2-
CACR09-966
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 406
us to consider whether the record—viewed in the light most favorable to the State—presents
two equally reasonable conclusions about what happened; if so, the evidence has raised only
a suspicion of guilt and thus the fact finder was required to speculate in order to convict the
defendant. King v. State, 100 Ark. App. 208, 266 S.W.3d 205 (2007) (supp. op. on denial of
reh’g). Viewing the evidence “in the light most favorable to the State” means, inter alia, that
we do not consider any proof that supported the defendant’s innocence. See id.
Appellant’s argument ignores that the rule he invokes—that substantial evidence must
exclude every reasonable hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused—applies only to
situations where the State’s case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. Circumstantial
evidence is evidence of circumstances from which a fact may be inferred. Direct evidence is
evidence that proves a fact without resort to inference, e.g., when it is proved by witnesses
who testify to what they saw, heard, or experienced. Jackson v. State, 363 Ark. 311, 214
S.W.3d 232 (2005). There is a plethora of direct evidence supporting appellant’s conviction
in this case, notably including appellant’s own testimony at trial admitting that there were
three dozen potted marijuana plants on his property, his reference to the plants as “my plants,”
his detailed description of his methods of cultivation, and his comparison of his 2008 crop to
yields obtained by him in previous years. There was, in addition, testimony that police
officers searched appellant’s property and found marijuana plants growing there in pots, just
as they had during raids on appellant’s property in previous years; that appellant was found
asleep in his truck on the property during the raid; and that samples of the plants seized were
-3-
CACR09-966
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 406
tested by a forensic chemist who confirmed that they were in fact marijuana. We hold that
there was substantial evidence to show that appellant manufactured marijuana. See Craig v.
State, 314 Ark. 585, 863 S.W.2d 825 (1993).
Affirmed.
H ART and B AKER, JJ., agree.
-4-
CACR09-966
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.