Page 624
APPEAL
FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 46CR-18-152],
HONORABLE BRENT HALTOM, JUDGE
Phillip
A. McGough, P.A., North Little Rock, by: Phillip A. McGough,
for appellant.
Leslie
Rutledge, Atty Gen., by: Kent G. Holt, Asst Atty Gen., for
appellee.
OPINION
RITA W.
GRUBER, Chief Judge
A
Miller County Circuit Court jury found appellant Misty Martin
guilty of possession of crack cocaine and possession of drug
paraphernalia. She was sentenced as a habitual offender to
consecutive prison terms of nine years for possession of
crack and three years for possession of drug paraphernalia.
Her sole point on appeal is that the evidence was
insufficient to support her conviction for possession of drug
paraphernalia. We hold that substantial evidence supports the
jurys verdict, and we affirm.
In
reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we
determine whether the verdict is supported by substantial
evidence, direct or circumstantial. Malone v. State,
364 Ark. 256, 261, 217 S.W.3d 810, 813 (2005). Substantial
evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion
one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture.
Id. We view the evidence in the light most favorable
to the verdict and consider only evidence supporting the
verdict. Id.
Officer Peyton Harris of the Texarkana, Arkansas, Police
Department testified that on February 13, 2018, he was
patrolling the Rondo Cemetery due to reports of vandalism and
narcotics in the area when he approached a parked car. The
driver, Doyle Furqueron, got out of the car and started
walking toward the tombstones; appellant was sitting in the
passenger seat. Officer Harris approached Doyle and asked
what he and his passenger were doing. Doyle replied that they
were visiting family. Officer Harris then asked Doyle if
there was anything illegal in the car. Doyle said no and gave
Harris permission to search the car.
Officer Harris testified that he discovered a baggie
containing a "white rock substance" he believed to
be crack cocaine in the passenger-door armrest and a crack
pipe under the edge of the passenger seat that appeared to
contain an unsmoked white residue. Both Doyle and appellant
denied that either of the items belonged to them. Appellant
was charged and taken into custody.
Officer Lester Colley, a detective with the Bi-State
Narcotics Task Force, testified that he interviewed appellant
the next day, and she told him that the crack cocaine found
in the car belonged to her. She denied that the crack pipe
was hers. She also told him that she was "fixing to
smoke" the crack cocaine. Appellant testified at trial,
admitting that she owned the crack cocaine found in the car
but denying that she was the owner of the crack pipe. She
said that she had not known the pipe was in the car when she
got in.
Possession may be established by proof of actual possession
or constructive possession. Martin v. State, 2019
Ark.App. 19, at 5, 567 S.W.3d 558, 561. Because appellant did
not physically possess the crack pipe when it was discovered,
the State was required to prove that she constructively
possessed the pipe. To prove constructive possession, the
State must establish that the defendant exercised "care,
control, and management over the contraband."
McKenzie v. State, 362 Ark. 257, 263, 208 S.W.3d
173, 175 (2005). While constructive possession may be implied
when the contraband is in the joint control of the accused
and another, joint occupancy of a car, standing alone, is not
sufficient to establish possession. Malone, 364 Ark.
at 261, 217 S.W.3d at 813. There must be some other factor
linking the accused to the contraband. Id. Other
factors to be considered in cases involving vehicles occupied
by more than one person are (1) whether the contraband is in
plain view; (2) whether the contraband is found with the
accuseds personal effects; (3) whether it is found on the
same side of the car seat as the accused was sitting or in
near proximity to it; (4) whether the accused is the owner of
the automobile, or exercises dominion and control over it;
and (5) whether the accused acted suspiciously before or
during the arrest. Lockheart-Singleton v. State,
2018 Ark.App. 307, at 5, 2018 WL 2227865. There is no
requirement that all, or even a majority, of the linking
factors be present to constitute constructive possession of
the contraband. Id.
Here,
appellant admitted that the crack found in the passenger-side
armrest was hers. Officer Harris discovered the crack pipe
under the front edge of the seat appellant had been sitting
in immediately before the search. Appellant initially denied
that either the crack or the crack pipe belonged to her. She
admitted the day after the search that the crack belonged to
her and said she had been "fixing to smoke" it when
asked her intentions about the crack. Although appellant
denied that the pipe belonged to her, the resolution of
conflicts in testimony and assessment of the credibility of
witnesses is for the jury. Harris v. State, 72
Ark.App. 227, 232, 35 S.W.3d 819, 823 (2000). It was not
required to believe any witnesss testimony, especially
appellants, since she was the person most interested in the
outcome of the case. Id. We hold that substantial
evidence supports the jurys verdict.
Affirmed.
Whiteaker
and ...