Needham v. State, CACR
| Decision Date | 03 September 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. CACR,CACR |
| Citation | 640 S.W.2d 118,270 Ark. 131 |
| Parties | Toni NEEDHAM, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. 80-26. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
E. Alvin Schay, State App. Public Defender by Deborah Davies Cross, Deputy Defender, Little Rock, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen., Victra L. Fewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
The only question presented by this appeal is whether the decision of the court in revoking the appellant's probation was clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. The parties seem to agree upon the evidentiary standard which must be met for revocation. Their disagreement is with respect to whether the evidence before us meets that standard. We find that it does and thus we affirm.
The appellant was placed on probation on October 29, 1979, as a result of having been accused of six counts of "obtaining a controlled substance by fraud." In each of the counts the substance described was a drug called Talwin. The probation was for a period of three years conditioned upon the good behavior of the appellant and the payment of a fine.
The state petitioned to revoke the appellant's probation, alleging that on November 7, 1979, she again committed the offense of obtaining a controlled substance by fraud by altering a prescription for Talwin, increasing the number of tablets and number of refills specified on the prescription, and passing it to a pharmacy. The appellant admitted, at the revocation hearing, that she had given the prescription in question to the pharmacist. She claimed, however, that she had legitimately obtained the prescription for the use of her daughter, and she claimed that her husband had altered the prescription without her knowledge. There is no doubt the prescription was issued by a physician who testified he had made it for a "small amount" of ten pills for the use of the appellant's daughter whom he had treated for a urinary infection. The prescription as he issued it provided for no refills. As it appeared when it was given to the pharmacist, it provided for 40 pills and two refills.
The appellant testified she had left the prescription at her home prior to having it filled, and that not only had her husband had an opportunity to make the alteration but that he had admitted to her that he had done it. However, the appellant's husband, after asserting his right not to incriminate himself in response to some questions he was asked at the hearing, ultimately testified he had never seen the prescription in question.
The standard for review is not in doubt. In Pearson v. State, 262 Ark. 513, 558 S.W.2d 149 (1977), our supreme court made it clear we should...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Venable v. State
...of the evidence. The fact that evidence is circumstantial does not render it insufficient as a matter of law. See Needham v. State, 270 Ark. 131, 640 S.W.2d 118 (App.1980). The trial court was justified in revoking the defendant's suspended Affirmed. CRACRAFT, J., concurs. CORBIN, C.J., and......
-
Rousseau v. State
...151 (1986)). Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to warrant revocation. Lamb v. State, supra (citing Needham v. State, 270 Ark. 131, 603 S.W.2d 412 (Ark. App. 1980)). In order for appellant's suspended sentence to be revoked, the State need only prove that he committed one violation o......
-
Lamb v. State, 00-1056
...State, 289 Ark. 184, 711 S.W.2d 151(1986). Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to warrant revocation. See Needham v. State, 270 Ark. 131, 603 S.W.2d 412 (Ark. App. 1980). While the evidence in the case at bar is circumstantial, we cannot conclude that the trial court's decision was cl......
-
Anderson v. State, CACR07-1297 (Ark. App. 5/21/2008), CACR07-1297.
...State, 289 Ark. 184, 711 S.W.2d 151 (1986). Circumstantial evidence may be sufficient to warrant revocation. See Needham v. State, 270 Ark. 131, 603 S.W.2d 412 (Ark. App.1980). Id. at 247, 45 S.W.3d at 870-71. The State need only prove that the appellant committed one violation of the condi......