Ravellette v. State, CR78-113
| Decision Date | 09 October 1978 |
| Docket Number | No. 1,No. CR78-113,CR78-113,1 |
| Parties | Shelby Dale RAVELLETTE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee |
| Court | Arkansas Supreme Court |
Winfred A. Trafford, Pine Bluff, for appellant.
Bill Clinton, Atty. Gen. by Ray E. Hartenstein, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
Appellant and a codefendant were jointly charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. The jury found them guilty and assessed their punishment at three years in the Department of Corrections and a $5,000 fine. Upon the jury's recommendation, the trial judge suspended the sentence of imprisonment. Appellant contends for reversal that the trial court erred in refusing his motion for a directed verdict. We agree.
Appellant and his codefendant jointly occupied a multi-room rent house. The police had had this house under surveillance for approximately an hour when they saw appellant's codefendant arrive home from work about 6:40 a. m. In a few minutes the appellant left the house in his automobile on his way to his employment. The police followed and stopped him a few blocks away. A search of appellant and his car revealed nothing to link him with the alleged charge. The officers returned with appellant to the house and searched it pursuant to a search warrant issued two days previously. The codefendant was found sitting in the living room smoking a hand-rolled cigarette. Other relevant evidence resulting from the search was the discovery of a quantity of marijuana. Some was found in the dining room and in the living room, which, it appears, were subject to the common use of both occupants. Also some was found in the dining room closet. Some of the marijuana was contained in paper sacks, plastic and Ziploc bags. Marijuana, some packaged in a plastic bag, and other paraphernalia were discovered in the bedroom and closet of appellant's codefendant. No marijuana or any paraphernalia was found in appellant's bedroom. However a box of sandwich bags and Ziploc storage bags were found in his bedroom. Appellant denied any complicity or knowledge of the presence of the marijuana. His codefendant explained that a friend of his had left marijuana in the house that night in appellant's absence. The codefendant admitted that the items found in his bedroom and in the living room were his. He exonerated the appellant of any knowledge of the presence or control of the contraband.
When only circumstantial evidence is presented, as here, there must be...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ashe v. State
...and conjecture, the guilt of the defendant. Fortner & Holcombe v. State, 258 Ark. 591, 528 S.W.2d 378 (1975). In Ravellette v. State, 264 Ark. 344, 571 S.W.2d 433 (1978), we said: "Where inferences are relied upon, they should point to guilt so clearly that any other conclusion would be inc......
-
Walley v. State
...were other factors from which the jury can reasonably infer the accused had joint possession and control." Ravellette v. State, 264 Ark. 344, 346, 571 S.W.2d 433, 434 (1978). In Ravellette, we held that where marijuana was found in a living room and dining room of a rented house jointly sha......
-
Green v. State
...how suspicious the circumstances are.” Hodge v. State, 303 Ark. 375, 379, 797 S.W.2d 432, 435 (1990) (quoting Ravellette v. State, 264 Ark. 344, 347, 571 S.W.2d 433, 435 (1978)). I cannot say that the evidence presented by the State in this case meets that requirement as to the murders of C......
-
Howard v. State
...so clearly that Any other conclusion would be insufficient. Hodge v. State, 303 Ark. 375, 797 S.W.2d 432 (1990); Ravellette v. State, 264 Ark. 344, 571 S.W.2d 433 (1978). This court went on in these two opinions to state that this is so regardless of how suspicious the circumstances are. Ho......