Court Opinion

ID: 9612328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 04:07:14.259777+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:03:20.508951
License: Public Domain

Andree Layton Roaf, Judge, concurring. I concur in affirming this case but do not agree that Vergara-Soto had to be literally inside his home when the contraband and gun were found in order to avail himself of the defense set out in Ark. Code Ann. § 5-74-106(d). Vergara-Soto was charged with simultaneous possession of drugs and firearms. He was away from his trailer home and was brought there by officers, remaining outside while the officers conducted a search that resulted in the discovery of a handgun and contraband together in a sock, and three clips of ammunition in another room. A common-sense reading of the statutory defense relied upon by Vergara-Soto suggests that the “possession”1 at issue, whether actual or, as in this case, constructive, must occur in the defendant’s own home, as opposed to another location, for the defense to attain. In Gilbert v. State, 341 Ark. 601, 19 S.W.3d 595 (2000), the supreme court said that the record was conflicting on whether the appellant was “in his own home” as the statutory defense requires, or another home not his primary residence, but found the defense unavailable to him because the gun was not inaccessible for use. It would indeed be ludicrous for this defense to be available to a defendant who is found inside his own home at the time of a search and necessarily in much closer proximity to a weapon, but not to one who remains outside or is even away from home during a search. Statutory construction requires a common-sense approach. Rosario v. State, 319 Ark. 764, 894 S.W.2d (1995). Even penal statutes should not be construed to reach absurd results. Dollar v. State, 287 Ark. 61, 697 S.W.2d 868 (1985). To establish the offense at issue, the State must prove two elements 1) Vergara-Soto possessed a firearm, and 2) a connection existed between the firearm and the controlled substance. Gilbert v. State, supra. In this instance, there was a close connection between Vergara-Soto’s firearm and the controlled substance, Ver-gara-Soto does not contest on appeal that he possessed these items, and does not contend that the gun was not readily accessible for use because the ammunition clips were located in a different room of the trailer. A gun with three ammunition clips in a small trailer is clearly “readily accessible for use,” and I agree in affirming this conviction.   Vergara-Soto does not argue on appeal that he was not “in possession” of the items found. Thus, his “possession,” and our analysis of the argument he does raise, must necessarily place him in the home with the contraband and gun.