Holt v. State

• Decision Date: 08 October 2009
• Docket Number: No. CR 09–51.,CR 09–51.
• Citation: 2009 Ark. 482,348 S.W.3d 562
• Parties: Amanda Gail HOLT, Appellant,v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.
• Court: Arkansas Supreme Court

2009 Ark. 482

348 S.W.3d 562

Amanda Gail HOLT, Appellant,

v.STATE of Arkansas, Appellee.

No. CR 09–51.

Supreme Court of Arkansas.

Oct. 8, 2009.

William R. Simpson, Jr., Public Defender, by: Clint Miller, Deputy Public Defender, Little Rock, for appellant.Dustin McDaniel, Att'y Gen., by: Karen Virginia Wallace, Ass't Att'y Gen., for appellee.ANNABELLE CLINTON IMBER, Justice.

Appellant Amanda Gail Holt was convicted in the Pulaski County Circuit Court of manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine); possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture; maintaining a drug premises; and exposing a child to a chemical substance (methamphetamine). She was sentenced to several consecutive terms of imprisonment totaling 612 months. Appellant argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict on each of the offenses.

The Arkansas Court of Appeals, in a nine-judge panel, issued an opinion reversing and dismissing Appellant's convictions for manufacturing methamphetamine and maintaining a drug premises. See Holt v. State, 104 Ark. App. 198, 290 S.W.3d 21 (2008). Although the court of appeals concluded that there was insufficient evidence to support either of those convictions, it upheld the other convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture and exposing a child to methamphetamine. Id. Appellant petitioned this court for review of the court of appeals' decision. We granted her petition for review pursuant to Arkansas Supreme Court Rule 2–4(c)(iii). When we grant review of a decision by the Arkansas Court of Appeals, we review the case as though the appeal was originally filed in this court. See Morgan v. State, 2009 Ark. 257, 308 S.W.3d 147.

On September 21, 2006, Officer Randy Howard of the Pulaski County Sheriff's Office went to the home of Michael Hogue in response to a call regarding three small children playing in the road. As Officer Howard approached the location, he saw three children playing behind a trailer. The door to the trailer was wide open. The officer also noticed a strong chemical odor emanating from the trailer, which he recognized as an odor consistent with the presence of a methamphetamine lab. He then knocked on the door. A few moments later the owner, Michael Hogue, came to the door from a bedroom just inside the door to the right and proceeded to close the door as he spoke with the officer. When Officer Howard asked to speak to the mother of the children, Hogue went back inside the trailer. Immediately thereafter, the officer heard movement coming from the bedroom on the right side of the trailer and Appellant then appeared at the door. Officer Howard asked her if she knew where her children were, to which she responded that she had been asleep and did not know the children were outside playing. The officer then informed Appellant that he was concerned about the children being exposed to the strong chemical odor. He asked to search the trailer, but Appellant declined to give consent, claiming that she had only been staying at the trailer for a couple of weeks. Hogue then gave the officer permission to search the exterior of the trailer. Upon detecting the same odor coming from the other side of the trailer, Officer Howard alerted investigators about the chemical odor. Once an investigator arrived, she detected the presence of phosphine gas using a gas detection unit and summoned Hogue's parole officer.

The parole officer conducted a home inspection of the trailer. During the search of the bedroom to the right of the door, the officer saw a bed and dresser and several items that were collected as evidence: an electric hotplate that was still warm to the touch; stained salt container consistent with a methamphetamine lab; small plastic bag commonly used for packaging narcotics; a large box of match boxes; a camp fuel can and glass jar under a blanket on the bed; and a black satchel underneath the mattress that contained items used in the manufacture of methamphetamine. The items in the satchel included a bottle with a bi-layer liquid (which indicates the presence of methamphetamine oil that is near the final steps in the manufacturing process), as well as two bottles that contained a white granular substance emitting an acidic fume. One of the drawers in the dresser contained hypodermic needles, a glass smoking device, coffee filters and a spoon. Another drawer in the dresser contained children's clothing and a hypodermic needle.

Additional items found in another bedroom on the other side of the trailer included some small plastic baggies and some tubing used in transferring chemicals during the manufacturing of methamphetamine. The children were taken to a local hospital for decontamination because of their possible exposure to the chemicals. The hospital also performed a hair follicle test on the children to check for exposure to methamphetamine. The test showed exposure to the drug, as well as the youngest child's ingestion of the drug cocaine.

I. Sufficiency of the Evidence—Manufacturing Methamphetamine

Appellant contends that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict on the offense of manufacturing methamphetamine. She argues that, even in the light most favorable to the State, the State did not introduce substantial evidence at trial to prove that she manufactured methamphetamine. Specifically, Appellant argues that her mere presence in the residence and her knowledge of what was being done there does not constitute substantial evidence that she manufactured methamphetamine.

Our court has held that we treat a motion for a directed verdict as a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Saul v. State, 365 Ark. 77, 81, 225 S.W.3d 373, 377 (2006) (citing Coggin v. State, 356 Ark. 424, 156 S.W.3d 712 (2004)). The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Walley v. State, 353 Ark. 586, 112 S.W.3d 349 (2003). Substantial evidence is that “which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other, without resorting to speculation or conjecture.” Saul, 365 Ark. at 81, 225 S.W.3d at 377. With regard to circumstantial evidence, such evidence may provide a basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant's guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Id. When we review a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, this court views the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, and only evidence supporting the verdict will be considered. Walley, 353 Ark. 586, 112 S.W.3d 349 (citing Smith v. State, 352 Ark. 92, 98 S.W.3d 433 (2003)). Furthermore, a jury need not lay aside its common sense in evaluating the ordinary affairs of life, and it may infer a defendant's guilt from improbable explanations of incriminating conduct. Id.

Appellant was convicted of manufacturing methamphetamine in violation of Ark.Code Ann. § 5–64–401(a)(1)(A)(i) (Supp.2009). She concedes that the State proved (a) she was present in the residence when methamphetamine was being manufactured and (b) she knew methamphetamine was being manufactured. Notwithstanding this concession, Appellant claims the State failed to prove that she had ever been inside the master bedroom where all the paraphernalia used to manufacture methamphetamine was found. In essence, she challenges the sufficiency of the State's proof linking her to the manufacturing paraphernalia located in the master bedroom.

In Walley v. State, supra, we discussed the analysis necessary to review a sufficiency challenge in cases where two or more people occupy the residence where contraband was found. We stated that:

Under our law, it is clear that the State need not prove that the accused physically possessed the contraband in order to sustain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance if the location of the contraband was such that it could be said to be under the dominion and control of the accused, that is, constructively possessed.... Constructive possession can be implied when the controlled substance is in the joint control of the accused and another. Joint occupancy, though, is not sufficient in itself to establish possession or joint possession. There must be some additional factor linking the accused to the contraband. The State must show additional facts and circumstances indicating the accused's knowledge and control of the contraband.

353 Ark. 586, 595, 112 S.W.3d 349, 353 (2003). In order to prove constructive possession, the State must establish two elements: “(1) that the accused exercised care, control, and management over the contraband, and (2) that the accused knew the matter possessed was contraband.” Id. (citing Darrough v. State, 322 Ark. 251, 908 S.W.2d 325 (1995); Plotts v. State, 297 Ark. 66, 759 S.W.2d 793 (1988)).

An additional factor is necessary to link the accused to the contraband in joint occupancy situations. Ravellette v. State, 264 Ark. 344, 571 S.W.2d 433 (1978). “It cannot be inferred that one in non-exclusive possession of premises knew of the presence of drugs and had joint control of them unless there were other factors from which the jury can reasonably infer the accused had joint possession and control.” Walley, 353 Ark. at 596, 112 S.W.3d at 354. We have stated that an additional factor to consider in determining whether a defendant was in constructive possession was the proximity of the defendant to the contraband. Morgan v. State, 2009 Ark. 257, 308 S.W.3d 147.

With these principles in mind, and viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we conclude that there is sufficient evidence to support Appellant's conviction of manufacturing methamphetamine. It is undisputed that Appellant had been occupying the residence for at least two weeks. Furthermore, Appel...