In revocation proceedings, it is the State's burden to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that the appellant violated a condition of his suspension or probation, and an appellate court will not reverse the trial court's decision unless, it is clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. See, e.g., Billings v. State, 53 Ark. App. 219, 222-23, 921 S.W.2d 607, 609 (1996). The appellate court defers to the trial court's superior position in determining the credibility and weight to be given to testimony at revocation proceedings. See, e.g., Hyde v. State, 59 Ark. App. 131, 135, 953 S.W.2d 911, 913 (1997). On appeal, the appellant does not challenge the sufficiency of the evidence that he possessed a firearm, but asserts that he was justified in his possession of it. Appellant relies on Ark. Code Ann. 5-2-604 (Repl. 1997), which states: (a) Conduct which would otherwise constitute an offense is justifiable when: (1) the conduct is necessary as an emergency measure to avoid an imminent public or private injury; and (2) the desirability and urgency of avoiding the injury outweigh, according to ordinary standards of reasonableness, the injury sought to be prevented by the law proscribing the conduct. Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, court did not find that the trial court erred in its decision.