Springston v. State, 95-1366

• Decision Date: 27 January 1997
• Docket Number: No. 95-1366,95-1366
• Citation: 327 Ark. 90,936 S.W.2d 550
• Parties: Justin SPRINGSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

Page 550

936 S.W.2d 550

327 Ark. 90

Justin SPRINGSTON, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. 95-1366.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Jan. 27, 1997.

Brian L. Spaulding, Springdale, for appellant.

Winston Bryant, Attorney General, J. Brent Standridge, Assistant Attorney General, Little Rock, for appellee.

ARNOLD, Chief Justice.

Justin Springston was charged in a delinquency petition with possession of marijuana. He moved to dismiss the charge, arguing that the State had failed to prove that the substance he possessed contained Tetrahydrocannabinol, otherwise known as THC. The judge denied the motion to dismiss and found the allegations in the juvenile petition to be true. Springston was sentenced to six months' probation, five days in juvenile detention (suspended), community service, and he had his driver's license suspended for one year. We affirm.

On October 27, 1994, the State filed its petition in Washington County Chancery Court. The proof at trial consisted of the testimony of Fayetteville High School Assistant Principal Lee Haight and the testimony of Vice-Principal David Hunt. Mr. Haight testified that on October 12, 1994, the Fayetteville Police Department brought drug-sniffing dogs into the school for a routine check of student lockers. One of the dogs stopped at Justin Springston's locker. The locker was opened and a bag containing a "green, leafy substance" was found. A pipe was also found. Vice-Principal Hunt testified that when Springston was called to the office and confronted, he admitted that the substance was his.

At the close of the testimonial evidence, the State and the defense presented a stipulated exhibit that had been prepared by a chemist, Dr. Howick. The stipulation contained Dr. Howick's findings regarding his testing of the substance found in Springston's locker. It read, in pertinent part, as follows:

1. Visual inspection of test indicated the substance characterists [sic] were consistent with marihauna [sic];

2. Chemical test yeilded [sic] results consistent with the presence of marihauna [sic];

3. Test results, when taken together, confirmed to the examiner the presence of marihauna [sic];

4. The presence or absence of THC could not be confirmed by the tests or by the examiner.

It is not clear from the record whether a test was actually administered for the purpose of determining the presence of THC; as best we can tell, no such test was performed.

Upon introduction of the stipulated exhibit, the State rested its case. Springston moved to dismiss on the basis that the State had not proven the presence of THC. The trial court ruled that no such proof was necessary. Springston was adjudicated a delinquent and sentenced. This appeal followed.

The controversy on appeal arises from the definition of marijuana contained in Ark.Code Ann. § 5-64-101(n) (Repl.1993):

"Marijuana" means all parts and any variety and/or species of the plant Cannabis that...