Chor J. Phavixay v. State of Arkansas
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
SUPREME COURT OF ARKANSAS
No.
CHOR J. PHAVIXAY,
CR07-585
Opinion Delivered 5-29-08
APPELLANT,
PETITION FOR REHEARING
VS.
STATE OF ARKANSAS,
APPELLEE,
DISSENTING OPINION.
ROBERT L. BROWN, Associate Justice
The State is justifiably alarmed over the opinion in this case because it limits the
prosecutor’s ability to prove intent and identity in drug cases. I would grant the petition for
rehearing.
The following two sentences in the majority opinion highlight the problem:
“However, in the instant case, Phavixay was charged with only the actual delivery of
methamphetamine. Intent was not at issue.” Phavixay v. State, ___ Ark. ___, ___ , ___
S.W.3d ___, ___ (April 10, 2008).
As the State underscores in its petition for rehearing, Phavixay was not merely charged
with delivery. Intent is always an element for delivery of methamphetamine. See Ark. Code
Ann. § 5-2-204(b) (Repl. 2006) and § 5-64-401(a) (Repl. 2005) . For the crime to occur,
the defendant must knowingly and purposefully transfer the drug to another for money. See
Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-203(b) (Repl. 2006). For this court to conclude otherwise is simply
not correct and is misleading for law enforcement.
Intent, to be sure, can be proved by eyewitness testimony, but it can also be proved
by “[e]vidence of other crimes, wrongs, or acts.” Ark. R. Evid. 404(b); Scroggins v. State, 312
Ark. 106, 848 S.W.2d 400 (1993). For the majority to curtail the prosecutor in proving
intent, as it does in this case, runs directly counter to our case law. See, e.g., Brunson v. State,
368 Ark. 313, 325, 245 S.W.3d 132, 142 (2006) (“[T]his court has long held that it is proper
to allow the State to prove its case as fully as possible.”).
The same holds true for proving identity. Showing that the defendant made a similar
drug buy from the same police informant ten days earlier confirms that there was no mistaken
identity by the informant at trial.
The State is absolutely correct that rehearing needs to be granted. I respectfully
dissent.
CORBIN and GUNTER, JJ., join this dissent.
-2-
CR07-585
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.