Court Opinion

ID: 9638561
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 15:46:55.905915+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:10:07.797237
License: Public Domain

Terry Crabtree, Judge, dissenting. The appellant’s convictions are being reversed and dismissed based on a determination that the testimony of the accomplices was not adequately corroborated. Applying the law to the facts of this case, it is my conclusion that the corroborating evidence was not deficient. Therefore, I respectfully dissent. At 3:00 a.m. on the morning of December 11, 2001, a Tuesday, narcotics officers of the Little Rock Police Department executed a warrant for the search of a two-bedroom duplex at 205 Oak Lane # B. When the officers arrived, Kerri Harris, the lessee of the premises, was outside the duplex. Appellant and a woman named Stacy Jester were found in the front bedroom. Testimony from the officers revealed that a surveillance camera was mounted on the front of the residence. Contraband associated with the manufacture and ingestion of methamphetamine was also discovered. In the front bedroom where appellant and Ms. Jester were located, officers found a clear glass vase on top of the dresser that contained a bi-layer solution that proved to be methamphetamine oil. Four spoons with residue were also found on top of the dresser, as was a glass smoking pipe. Three hundred eighty-four dollars in small bills was sitting on top of the dresser as well. A Pyrex plate with methamphetamine residue, and a clear, plastic baggie containing 3.785 grams of red phosphorous were found on the floor beside the dresser. Also in that area of the floor, the officers found coffee filters, corners of plastic baggies, and small baggies, all of which visibly contained methamphetamine residue. A new electric burner was found in a box on the floor. There was also a box of syringes, an unopened blister pack of pseudoephedrine pills, two propane torches, plastic baggies, and a set of digital scales. These items were scattered on top of and within a pile of clothing. Officers testified that they detected the distinct odor associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine in this bedroom. In the kitchen, officers found a box of Sudafed, hydrogen peroxide, salt, more coffee filters, measuring cups, different sizes of glassware, and a hookah pipe used for smoking marijuana. In the trash by the street, they discovered twenty-eight empty blister packs of pseudoephedrine which held twenty-four pills to each pack, syringes, a spoon with residue, and a device described as an HCL generator. In a trash bag under the deck to the rear of the duplex, the officers found matchbook covers with the striker plates removed, two empty boxes of pseudoephedrine tablets, and coffee filters with residue on them. A black tote bag was found in the trunk of a vehicle that belonged to Stacy Jester. The bag contained a one-gallon can of camp fuel, a quart bottle of drain opener, coffee filters, a box of salt, tubing, and four pseudoephedrine tablets. A glass jar containing a bi-layer liquid and more coffee filters with residue were located in the trunk. Kerri Harris and Stacy Jester were charged along with the appellant, and the trial court declared them both to be accomplices as a matter of law. Harris testified that she had been living in the duplex for two years and that appellant and Jester had moved in with her two months prior to the search. She stated that appellant and Ms. Jester stayed in the front bedroom, while she slept in the master bedroom that connected with a bathroom. Harris said that appellant paid rent and half of the utility bills in either cash or methamphetamine and that appellant had installed the surveillance camera that was connected to a television in the living room. She testified that she had seen methamphetamine being manufactured in the home. She said that she had sold methamphetamine that night, but she denied that she had ever manufactured it. She testified that nothing in appellant’s bedroom belonged to her and that she had known appellant to drive Ms. Jester’s vehicle. Jester testified that appellant had been her boyfriend, that they had been living with Harris for several months, and that they had shared the front bedroom. She said that appellant routinely used her vehicle and that he had used the vehicle that night to drive to Wal-Mart. She denied that she owned the black tote bag found in the trunk, and she said that the items found in their bedroom belonged to the appellant. Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-89-lll(e)(l) (1987) provides that a person cannot be convicted of a felony based upon the testimony of an accomplice, unless that testimony is “corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense.” In Martin v. State, 346 Ark. 198, 57 S.W.3d 136 (2001), the supreme court set out the standards governing the corroboration requirement: Corroboration is not sufficient if it merely establishes that the offense was committed and the circumstances thereof. It must be evidence of a substantive nature since it must be directed toward proving the connection of the accused with the crime and not directed toward corroborating the accomplice’s testimony. The test for determining the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence is whether, if the testimony of the accomplice were totally eliminated from the case, the other evidence independently establishes the crime and tends to connect the accused with its commission. Circumstantial evidence may be used to support accomplice testimony, but it, too, must be substantial. Corroborating evidence need not, however, be so substantial in and of itself to sustain a conviction. Where circumstantial evidence is used to support accomplice testimony, all facts of evidence can be considered to constitute a chain sufficient to present a question for resolution by the jury as to the adequacy of the corroboration, and the court will not look to see whether every other reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt has been excluded. Id at 202-03, 57 S.W.3d at 139-40 (citations omitted). Under these standards, the State is not required to offer proof that corroborates the details of an accomplice’s testimony. For purposes of corroboration, it is only necessary for the State to present substantive evidence that “tends to connect” the defendant with the commission of the crime. Since the evidence need only “tend to connect,” I question the majority’s statement that it was absolutely necessary for the State to prove that the appellant “exercised care, control and management” of the contraband in order to satisfy the requirement of corroboration. The testimony of the accomplices provided substantial evidence of appellant’s constructive possession. In order to corroborate the accomplices’s testimony, however, the State was only required to offer evidence that tended to connect the defendant with the commission of the crime. Nonetheless, as a practical matter, the constructive possession analysis is useful in this context because in both instances the standards of proof are directed toward linking the defendant with the crime. Even so, the proof required to corroborate an accomplice’s testimony need not rise to the level of substantial evidence in order to be considered sufficient. It is said that constructive possession can be inferred when the controlled substance is in the joint control of the accused and another. Franklin v. State, 60 Ark. App. 198, 962 S.W.2d 370 (1998). However, joint occupancy alone is not sufficient to establish possession or joint possession; there must be some additional factor linking the accused to the contraband. Id. Those additional factors include the proximity of the contraband to the accused; the fact that it is in plain view; and the ownership of the property where the contraband is found. Nichols v. State, 306 Ark. 417, 815 S.W.2d 382 (1991). In this case, the residence itself was equipped with a surveillance camera. Appellant was located in a private area of the residence where a host of contraband was discovered. Thus, appellant was not merely caught near the scene of criminal activity — he was standing right in the thick of it. He was also there in the wee hours of the morning, a rather atypical hour for casual visitation, particularly on a week-night. The items of contraband found throughout this bedroom were lying about in plain view, and the room stank of the odor of methamphetamine production. In my view, the evidence taken as a whole is substantive in nature and does indeed tend to connect the appellant with the commission of the offenses. In reaching its decision, the majority emphasizes that the residence was not appellant’s. However, the absence of direct proof that he lived there is not determinative of the question before us. The issue here is the sufficiency of corroborating evidence; it is not whether there is substantial evidence to support a finding of constructive possession. In deciding whether there is sufficient evidence of corroboration, we do not look to see whether every other reasonable hypothesis of guilt has been excluded. The evidence in this case is that appellant was in a private room of a residence where he was virtually surrounded by numerous items of contraband that were in plain view. This very room also smelled of methamphetamine production. That there was no positive proof of appellant’s residency does not negate the tendency of this evidence to connect the appellant to the offenses. Also, our decision in Miles v. State, 76 Ark. App. 255, 64 S.W.3d 759 (2001), does not compel the reversal of this case. There, the appellant was simply walking with another man out of a room where contraband was found in a residence that belonged to yet another person. The opinion does not indicate whether the contraband was found in plain view in the bedroom, or whether it was tucked away in a drawer or closet. The bedroom in that case was also not singled out as the source of the odor of methamphetamine production. Unlike the circumstances here, there was not a shred of evidence linking the appellant with the commission of the offense. Miles is thus readily distinguishable. Because there is ample evidence of corroboration, I dissent. I am authorized to state that Chief Judge John F. Stroud joins in this opinion.