Joe Doss v. State of Arkansas

2025 Ark. App. 411

• Court: Court of Appeals of Arkansas
• Decided: September 10, 2025
• Status: Published

Opinion

Cite as 2025 Ark. App. 411 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-24-616

JOE DOSS Opinion Delivered September 10, 2025 APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CRAIGHEAD COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, V. WESTERN DISTRICT [NO. 16JCR-22-697] STATE OF ARKANSAS APPELLEE HONORABLE CHRIS THYER, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

RAYMOND R. ABRAMSON, Judge

Joe Doss appeals the Craighead County Circuit Court’s revocation of his probation.

On appeal, Doss argues that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to dismiss the

revocation petition. We affirm.

On October 3, 2022, Doss pled guilty to possession of methamphetamine with the

purpose to deliver, and he was sentenced to sixty months’ probation. On December 15,

2023, the State petitioned to revoke Doss’s probation, alleging that he committed the new

offenses of possession of methamphetamine with the purpose to deliver, possession of

cocaine with the purpose to deliver, possession of ecstasy with the purpose to deliver, and

tampering with physical evidence.

On June 24, 2024, the court held a revocation hearing. At the hearing, Tanner Huff,

a law enforcement officer with the Jonesboro Police Department, testified that on November 22, 2023, he conducted a traffic stop on a car in which Doss was a passenger. He explained

that Doss was in the car’s back seat and that he searched Doss due to his probation status.

Huff testified that he found a plastic bag containing marijuana residue in Doss’s pocket and

a plastic bag containing marijuana in a seat pocket near Doss’s seat. He stated that he then

detained Doss for possession of marijuana.

Wilburn Crews testified that he is a law enforcement officer with the Jonesboro Police

Department and works in the street-crimes unit handling gangs, narcotics, and criminal

activity. Crews stated that he assisted Huff with the traffic stop, and he explained that after

he transported Doss, he discovered a white bag in the back seat of the patrol car. He testified

that he watched the video from the back-seat camera and saw Doss remove a bag from his

pocket and place the bag under items in the patrol car. The State introduced the recording

into evidence. Crews then testified that the bag contained 216 ecstasy pills, 14 individual

bags of methamphetamine, and 4.6 grams of cocaine. Crews explained that he identified the

drugs on the basis of his experience, the drugs’ appearance and packaging, and Doss’s

actions.

Doss’s attorney later moved to dismiss the petition for insufficient evidence. He

argued that the length of his detention after the traffic stop violated Arkansas Rule of

Criminal Procedure 3.1. He also complained that no one from the crime laboratory testified

about the chemical analysis of the substances, and he asserted that his Confrontation Clause

rights were violated when he could not cross-examine a crime-laboratory witness. The court

denied the motion.

2 The court found Doss violated his probation, and it sentenced him to twenty years’

imprisonment and ten years’ suspended sentence. Doss appeals the revocation.

To revoke probation, the circuit court must find by a preponderance of the evidence

that the defendant has inexcusably violated a condition of the probation. Springs v. State,

2017 Ark. App. 364, 525 S.W.3d 490. The State’s burden of proof in a revocation

proceeding is lower than that required to convict in a criminal trial, and evidence that is

insufficient for a conviction may be sufficient for a revocation. Id. The State does not have

to prove every allegation in its petition, and proof of only one violation is sufficient to sustain

a revocation. Mathis v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 49, 616 S.W.3d 274. We will uphold the circuit

court’s findings unless they are clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Id. Because

the determination of a preponderance of the evidence turns on questions of credibility and

weight to be given to the testimony, we defer to the circuit court’s superior position to do

so. Burgess v. State, 2021 Ark. App. 54.

On appeal, Doss first argues that the circuit court erred by denying his motion to

dismiss the revocation petition because the State presented insufficient evidence to

substantiate the chemical composition of the alleged drugs. He points out that the State did

not provide a chemical analysis, and no witness from the crime laboratory testified. He

further argues that his rights under the Confrontation Clause were violated because he could

not cross-examine a witness from the crime laboratory.

Doss’s argument is without merit. The State is not required to use chemical analysis

to prove the identity of a controlled substance. Kellensworth v. State, 2021 Ark. 5, 614 S.W.3d

3 804; Abernathy v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 532, 699 S.W.3d 842. Lay testimony may provide

substantial evidence of the identity of a controlled substance, even in the absence of expert

chemical analysis. Kellensworth, 2021 Ark. 5, 614 S.W.3d 804; Abernathy, 2024 Ark. App.

532, 699 S.W.3d 842. Here, a narcotics officer testified and identified the drugs.

Accordingly, we hold that the evidence is sufficient to support the finding that Doss violated

his probation.

As to Doss’s Confrontation Clause argument, the right to confront and cross-examine

applies only to witnesses who testify or to those persons whose out-of-court testimonial

statements are offered in evidence for the truth of the matter asserted. Caldwell v. State, 2018

Ark. App. 588, 565 S.W.3d 539. The right generally does not compel the State to produce

every possible witness. Id.

Here, the State did not introduce any evidence from the crime laboratory. Thus, the

court did not deny Doss his right to confront a witness, and his rights under the

Confrontation Clause were not violated.

Doss also asserts that the circuit court erred by considering his possession of

marijuana in denying his motion to dismiss for a violation of Arkansas Rule of Criminal

Procedure 3.11 because the State did not allege possession of marijuana as a violation in the

1 Rule 3.1 of the Arkansas Rules of Criminal Procedure provides the basic rule for stopping and detaining a person:

A law enforcement officer lawfully present in any place may, in the performance of his duties, stop and detain any person who he reasonably suspects is committing, has committed, or is about to commit (1) a felony, or (2) a misdemeanor involving danger

4 revocation petition. He also asserts that the circuit court should have dismissed the

revocation petition for a violation of Rule 3.1 for detaining him more than twenty minutes

following the traffic stop.

Doss’s argument is again meritless. Officers detained Doss following the traffic stop

for possessing marijuana, and Doss did not argue below that the circuit court could not

consider his possession of marijuana in addressing the Rule 3.1 argument. Myers v. State,

2014 Ark. App. 720, 451 S.W.3d 588 (holding that a defendant must object to the circuit

court to preserve an issue for appeal). Even so, the circuit court also based Doss’s revocation

on his possession of cocaine, ecstasy, and methamphetamine, and the State alleged those

violations in the petition. Proof of only one violation is sufficient to sustain a revocation.

Mathis, 2021 Ark. App. 49, 616 S.W.3d 274. Accordingly, the circuit court did not err in

denying Doss’s motion to dismiss. We affirm the revocation of Doss’s probation.

Affirmed.

BARRETT and WOOD, JJ., agree.

Terry Goodwin Jones, for appellant.

Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Jacob Jones, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.

of forcible injury to persons or of appropriation of or damage to property, if such action is reasonably necessary either to obtain or verify the identification of the person or to determine the lawfulness of his conduct. An officer acting under this rule may require the person to remain in or near such place in the officer’s presence for a period of not more than fifteen (15) minutes or for such time as is reasonable under the circumstances. At the end of such period the person detained shall be released without further restraint, or arrested and charged with an offense.