Hartman v. State

Supreme Court of Arkansas

Hartman v. State

530 S.W.2d 366, 258 Ark. 1018, 1975 Ark. LEXIS 1734

CourtSupreme Court of Arkansas

DecidedDecember 15, 1975

DocketCR 75-133

StatusPublished

Cited by5 cases

This text of 530 S.W.2d 366 (Hartman v. State) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Supreme Court of Arkansas primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Hartman v. State, 530 S.W.2d 366, 258 Ark. 1018, 1975 Ark. LEXIS 1734 (Ark. 1975).

Pincite

Opinion

Frank Holt, Justice.

Appellant Hartman and three others, Emerson, Roberts, and Whitehead, were convicted by the court, sitting as a jury, of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-2617 (Supp. 1973). They were sentenced to five years imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant’s sole point for reversal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict as to Hartman’s participation. We cannot agree when we consider the evidence, which is substantial, in the light most favorable to the appellee as we must do on appeal. Haynie v. State, 257 Ark. 542, 518 S.W. 2d 492 (1975).

Undercover agents testified they made a deal with Roberts to purchase twenty pounds of marijuana. Roberts advised them that he could make delivery at a certain time and at a designated location. The two agents picked Roberts up at his home and proceeded to this site where Emerson and Hartman arrived in a car driven by Emerson. The officers refused Emerson’s request to go somewhere else to get the marijuana. Thereupon, Emerson and Hartman left with Emerson driving and advising “they” would be back. They returned a short time later in another car, driven by Emerson, with Hartman in the front seat and Whitehead sitting in the back seat. The occupants then got out of the car. Emerson and Hartman went to the trunk of the car where they “looked into” and “fooled around with the trunk.” Emerson removed a box from his car trunk and put it onto his car seat where it was examined by the officer and then transferred by Emerson to the undercover agent’s car. Thereupon, the officers arrested the appellant and his codefendants. There was no money exchanged during the transaction. There was no testimony that the defendant Hartman talked to the officers, drove either of the cars involved, or transferred the marijuana from one car to the other.

The distinction between accessories and principals has been abolished in all criminal cases and accessories are punished as principals. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-118 (Repl. 1964). Murrah v. State, 253 Ark. 432, 486 S.W. 2d 897 (1972). In the case at bar, the evidence is amply sufficient from which the trial court, the trier of the facts, could reasonably infer that the appellant, being present on two occasions, was an active participant in the alleged offense.

Affirmed.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Frank Holt, Justice.

Appellant Hartman and three others, Emerson, Roberts, and Whitehead, were convicted by the court, sitting as a jury, of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 82-2617 (Supp. 1973). They were sentenced to five years imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. Appellant’s sole point for reversal is that the evidence is insufficient to support the verdict as to Hartman’s participation. We cannot agree when we consider the evidence, which is substantial, in the light most favorable to the appellee as we must do on appeal. Haynie v. State, 257 Ark. 542, 518 S.W. 2d 492 (1975).

Undercover agents testified they made a deal with Roberts to purchase twenty pounds of marijuana. Roberts advised them that he could make delivery at a certain time and at a designated location. The two agents picked Roberts up at his home and proceeded to this site where Emerson and Hartman arrived in a car driven by Emerson. The officers refused Emerson’s request to go somewhere else to get the marijuana. Thereupon, Emerson and Hartman left with Emerson driving and advising “they” would be back. They returned a short time later in another car, driven by Emerson, with Hartman in the front seat and Whitehead sitting in the back seat. The occupants then got out of the car. Emerson and Hartman went to the trunk of the car where they “looked into” and “fooled around with the trunk.” Emerson removed a box from his car trunk and put it onto his car seat where it was examined by the officer and then transferred by Emerson to the undercover agent’s car. Thereupon, the officers arrested the appellant and his codefendants. There was no money exchanged during the transaction. There was no testimony that the defendant Hartman talked to the officers, drove either of the cars involved, or transferred the marijuana from one car to the other.

The distinction between accessories and principals has been abolished in all criminal cases and accessories are punished as principals. Ark. Stat. Ann. § 41-118 (Repl. 1964). Murrah v. State, 253 Ark. 432, 486 S.W. 2d 897 (1972). In the case at bar, the evidence is amply sufficient from which the trial court, the trier of the facts, could reasonably infer that the appellant, being present on two occasions, was an active participant in the alleged offense.

Affirmed.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

530 S.W.2d 366, 258 Ark. 1018, 1975 Ark. LEXIS 1734, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/hartman-v-state-ark-1975.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack