APPEAL FROM THE BENTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT. NO. CR2012-817-1. HONORABLE ROBIN F. GREEN, JUDGE.
Heather G. Zachary, for appellant.
Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Jake H. Jones, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge.
GLOVER and WHITEAKER, JJ., agree.
RITA W. GRUBER, Judge.
Calvin Jerome Stover was convicted by a jury of possession of the controlled substance methamphetamine, felon in possession of a firearm, and simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms--for which he was sentenced to prison terms totaling forty years. He raises three points on appeal. First, he contends that the circuit court abused its discretion by failing to grant his motion for mistrial. Second, he challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support the drug convictions. Third, he contends that the circuit court improperly allowed the introduction of certain evidence during the sentencing phase of trial. We affirm.
Sufficiency of the Evidence
The prohibition against double jeopardy requires that we review the sufficiency of evidence before we examine trial error. Powell v. State, 2013 Ark.App. 322, 427 S.W.3d 782. Stover argues on appeal that the evidence was insufficient to show that he possessed a usable quantity of methamphetamine, but he argued in his motions for directed verdict only that there was insufficient proof of his intent to possess methamphetamine. Arguments not raised at trial will not be addressed for the first time on appeal; parties are bound on appeal by the scope and nature of the arguments presented to the trial court. Abshure v. State, 79 Ark.App. 317, 87 S.W.3d 822 (2002). We will not address Stover's challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence because he has changed his argument from the one he made at trial.
Motion for Mistrial
Stover was brought into the courtroom in street clothes and appeared before potential jurors; shortly afterward, the prosecutor observed that there was a jail ID bracelet on Stover's left wrist. The prosecutor stated in a bench conference, " [W]e may want to get that off . . . . I mean it kind of defeats the purpose . . . ." Stover immediately moved for a mistrial " based on the fact that some potential jurors have already seen him in the company of a deputy, clearly in custody, and additionally, the fact that he is still wearing his jail ID bracelet." The judge stated, " I think that historically--the defendants wear long-sleeve shirts. . . . For the record, it's a clear bracelet, but part of it is not clear. Half of it is clear and the other half indicates his identification." The court excused the two potential jurors who indicated that they had seen Stover with the deputy sheriff before court, and it called a five-minute recess so that the bracelet could be taken off. Court reconvened for voir dire after the bracelet was removed.
Stover argues on appeal that his right to a fair trial was prejudiced because he was wearing a ...