Lueken v. State, CA CR 04-428 (Ark. App. 11/17/2004)
| Decision Date | 17 November 2004 |
| Docket Number | CA CR 04-428. |
| Parties | Geoffrey Chris LUEKEN v. STATE of Arkansas |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
1. CRIMINAL LAW — EVIDENCE SUFFICIENT TO SUPPORT CONVICTIONS FOR MANUFACTURING METHAMPHETAMINE, POSSESSION OF PARAPHERNALIA WITH INTENT TO MANUFACTURE, & MAINTAINING DRUG PREMISE — JURY COULD REASONABLY CONCLUDE THAT APPELLANT KNEW OF EXISTENCE OF DRUGS & DRUG-MANUFACTURING PARAPHERNALIA FOUND AT HIS RESIDENCE. — Appellant owned and lived in the premises where the paraphernalia and contraband were found; he was present when the search was conducted; several officers testified in detail as to the numerous items commonly found in a methamphetamine lab that were seized from appellant's home; the items were found throughout various common areas of the residence including the bathroom, the loft area, the living room, the kitchen, the laundry area, and a bedroom; when the officers approached the porch, they could smell the intense chemical odor connected to the manufacturing of methamphetamine and that the odor was also present near the rear of the home by the kitchen and laundry room; seven of the items found at appellant's residence tested positive for methamphetamine; of the remaining items tested, some of them had chemicals commonly used in the manufacturing process; moreover, on appellant's person, officers found a small plastic packet containing a glass bubbled tube with a white residue on it and a small metal pipe that tested positive for methamphetamine; thus, in the present case, the jury could reasonably conclude that appellant knew of the existence of the drugs and drug-manufacturing paraphernalia found at his residence; thus, supporting the convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of paraphernalia with intent to manufacture, & maintaining a drug premise.
2. MOTIONS — SUFFICIENT EVIDENCE EXISTED WHEREBY JURY COULD CONVICT APPELLANT OF ALL THREE CRIMES — TRIAL COURT PROPERLY DENIED APPELLANT'S MOTION FOR DIRECTED VERDICT. — Given the evidence that appellant owned the premises, that drugs and paraphernalia were found in common areas throughout the residence, and that methamphetamine and paraphernalia were found in appellant's pocket, the appellate court concluded that there was sufficient evidence whereby a jury could convict appellant of all three crimes; accordingly, the trial court properly denied appellant's motion for a directed verdict.
3. EVIDENCE — TRIAL COURT REFUSED TO ADMIT CO-DEFENDANT'S JUDGMENT & DISPOSITION ORDER — NO ABUSE OF DISCRETION FOUND. — Appellant's argument that the trial court erred in refusing to admit a certified copy of the co-defendant's judgment and disposition order, showing he pled guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine under a reverse Ark. R. Evid. 404(b) argument was without merit; he asserted that the introduction of the co-defendant's judgment and conviction order would have demonstrated motive, opportunity, and intent; the trial court did not err in refusing to admit the judgment and disposition order where, contrary to appellant's assertion, the order itself did not provide any information as to motive, opportunity, or intent; accordingly, the court found no abuse of discretion on the part of the trial judge in refusing to admit the co-defendant's judgment and disposition order.
Appeal from Conway Circuit Court; Paul F., Judge, affirmed.
The Jesse Law Firm, P.L.C., by: Mark Alan Jesse, for appellant.
Mike Beebe, Att'y Gen., by: Brent P. Gasper, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
Appellant, Geoffrey Lueken, appeals from his conviction by a Pulaski County jury of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and maintaining a drug premises. He was sentenced to 120 months' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. He has four points on appeal.1 First, he argues that when all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State, the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine. Second, he argues that when all evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State under a joint occupancy/constructive possession argument, the evidence was insufficient to support the conviction for possession of paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. Third, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction for maintaining a drug premises when the evidence demonstrated that contraband belonged to a joint occupant of the residence who had an equal right to control the premises. Fourth, appellant argues that the trial court erred in refusing to admit a certified copy of the co-defendant's judgment and conviction order, showing he had pled guilty to manufacturing methamphetamine under a reverse Rule 404(b) argument, as such was an exculpatory explanation for the paraphernalia found on the premises. We affirm.
On May 27, 2003, officers of the Little Rock Police Department executed a search warrant at the home of appellant and his roommate, Chris Southall. Upon the officers' arrival at the home, appellant was discovered outside working on a vehicle. Officer Russ Littleton testified that a security pat-down was conducted on appellant, and a cigarette package containing a clear smoking device with a white residue and a small metal pipe was discovered in his right pants pocket. Appellant was taken into custody.
Officer Ken Blankenship testified that while Officer Littleton stayed outside with appellant, he and other officers made their way into the home. He testified that when he reached the porch of the home a strong chemical odor was detected. Appellant's roommate, Mr. Southall, was in the bathroom, and a woman was on the sofa near the television in the living room. Officer Blankenship searched the area upstairs, which was a loft area, where a computer and paperwork were kept. In the loft area, he found a chopper, used to chop ephedrine tablets, and a propane bottle. Officer Blankenship also was responsible for searching Mr. Southall's vehicle, which was parked outside. A search of his vehicle revealed numerous items of drug paraphernalia, including a pickle jar with a bilayer liquid with a cloudy sediment on the bottom, paper plates, syringes, a drain opener, rust remover, a coffee filter inside a plastic bag containing red sludge, a 200 mm flask with tape around the top, a glass jar, and a glass.
Officer Greg Siegler explained that once the officers entered the home, there was a door straight ahead of them that was closed. He could hear someone inside a bathroom. Officer Siegler knocked on the door and identified himself. He heard the toilet flush. He told the person to come out; however, he heard the toilet flush again. Soon the door opened, Mr. Southall exited the bathroom and was taken into custody. Officer Siegler also testified that the woman who was discovered on the sofa in the living room was also taken into custody. A search of the living room revealed three straws, a glass smoking pipe, and four small plastic bags, which were all found near the coffee table.
The search continued into the kitchen and laundry room area. Officer Blankenship testified that a very strong odor was emanating from the kitchen and laundry room area. When he entered the small laundry room, he noticed boxes that had iodine stains on them. He also noticed staining on the walls as well as rust stains in the area in general. On the laundry room shelves and around the room, he found a gallon can of hexane, a funnel, plastic tubing, a container of salt, and coffee filters. A turkey baster, a jar containing a bilayer liquid, coffee filters, stirring sticks, a fan, a plastic bottle with tubing attached, and rubbing alcohol were also found in the laundry room. In the trash can in the laundry room, tubing with stains on it and tissue paper with stains on it were discovered.
Officer Michael Terry conducted a search of the bathroom and the kitchen. Once Mr. Southall was removed from the bathroom, Officer Terry discovered one small glass container with a small amount of white powder on it. In the kitchen, he found a "baster-type" object, a glass jar with a white powder type residue, a container of Red Devil lye, and a homemade smoking device.
A search of the southwest bedroom, conducted by officer Steve Pledger, revealed several items of drug paraphernalia. He discovered pipes used to ingest or smoke methamphetamine, a watertight bong used to smoke marijuana, and plastic bags with residue. Officer Pledger also testified as to items discovered on the porch of the residence. There he found a can of acetone, a can of toluene, which he testified is a thinner used in the separation of a methamphetamine cook, and a can of Coleman camp fuel.
Chris Harrison of the state crime lab testified that of the fourteen items tested for residue at the lab, seven of them tested positive for methamphetamine. Of the remaining items tested, some of them had chemicals commonly used in the manufacturing process. In his opinion, manufacturing was occurring at the residence. Moreover, on appellant's person, officers found a small plastic packet containing a glass tube with a white residue on it and a small metal pipe. As to the amount of methamphetamine found on appellant, Harrison testified that there was just a small amount of residue. As a result, he did a methanol rinse and did not weigh it.
At the conclusion of the testimony, a jury in Pulaski County Circuit Court convicted appellant of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia, and maintaining a drug premise. This appeal followed.
Because each of appellant's first three arguments concerns the sufficiency of the evidence as to three of his convictions, we...
To continue reading
Request your trial