Opinion ID: 2539450
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Sufficiency of the Evidence Possession of Drug Paraphernalia

Text: Appellant also argues that the circuit court erred in denying her motion for a directed verdict on the offense of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture. Once again, she challenges the evidence linking her to the manufacturing paraphernalia. The State argues that Appellant's argument on appeal is not preserved for appellate review. As a preliminary matter, to preserve an objection based on the sufficiency of the evidence, the appellant must make a motion for a directed verdict at the close of the State's case and again at the close of all evidence and must state the specific grounds. Ark. R.Crim. P. 33.1(a) & (c). Further, when a defendant does not present any evidence after making his directed verdict motion at the close of the State's case, further reliance on that motion is not waived. Mosley v. State, 87 Ark. App. 127, 130, 189 S.W.3d 456, 458 (2004). In her sufficiency challenge below, Appellant stated that the State has failed to make a prima facie case that to the exclusion of the other occupant of this trailer that [Appellant] possessed with intent to manufacture methamphetamine [paraphernalia], again for the purpose or intent to produce or manufacture methamphetamine. Thus, Appellant argues on appeal that the State did not prove that she constructively possessed the paraphernalia; that is, she argues that the State's proof regarding the other occupant was not sufficient to prove that she had joint possession and control of the contraband. We therefore conclude that Appellant's argument on this point is preserved for appellate review. Appellant was convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture, in violation of Ark.Code Ann. § 5-64-403(b)(5)(A) (Supp.2009). Based upon the evidence of Appellant's proximity to the manufacturing paraphernalia, as set forth earlier in this opinion, we conclude that the circuit court did not err in denying Appellant's directed-verdict motion.