Opinion ID: 1722896
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: Police officers arrested several persons at a residence in Little Rock. One of those arrested cooperated in a plan to have Igwe come to the residence where he might also be arrested. An officer testified a phone call was made and Igwe showed up some 20 minutes later with a paper containing powder and a crack pipe. No one testified to what was said in the phone conversation which apparently led to Igwe's subsequent arrival. The powder confiscated from Igwe was tested and found to weigh 1.175 grams with a pure heroin content weighing .446 grams. According to Ark.Code Ann. § 5-64-401(d) (Supp.1991) possession of more than 100 milligrams (.100 grams) of heroin creates a rebuttable presumption that it is possessed with intent to deliver. It was thus up to Mr. Igwe to present evidence to rebut the presumption. The only evidence he presented bearing on the issue was his own testimony that he was a drug user, carried the heroin for his own use, and had come to the residence where he was arrested because he had been informed he could obtain cocaine there. The general rule with respect to sufficiency of the evidence is: The evidence to support a conviction, whether direct or circumstantial, must be of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable and material certainty and precision, compel a conclusion one way or the other. Smith v. State, 308 Ark. 390, 824 S.W.2d 838 (1992). We will affirm the verdict of the trial court, if it is supported by substantial evidence, and circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial evidence. Hill v. State, 299 Ark. 327, 773 S.W.2d 424 (1989). To be sufficient to sustain a conviction, the circumstantial evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence. Bennett v. State, 308 Ark. 393, 825 S.W.2d 560 (1992). Lukach v. State, 310 Ark. 38, 834 S.W.2d 642 (1992). In determining whether there is substantial evidence, the court reviews the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee. Pope v. State, 262 Ark. 476, 557 S.W.2d 887 (1977). While Igwe argues that the drugs found in the search were for his personal consumption, the Trial Court clearly did not believe him. The question was for the fact finder, in this case the Trial Court, to resolve.