James L. Davis v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN E. JENNINGS, JUDGE

DIVISION I

CACR 00-706

May 2, 2001

JAMES L. DAVIS APPEAL FROM CLARK COUNTY

APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT

VS.

HONORABLE JOHN ALEXANDER THOMAS,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

A jury found James L. Davis guilty of possession of crack cocaine with intent to deliver, and he was sentenced to twenty-three years in prison. He argues on appeal that the trial court erred in admitting photographs of areas not occupied by him at the time a search warrant was executed and that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. We disagree and affirm appellant's conviction.

Corporal Roy Bethel of the Arkadelphia police testified that a person he had arrested for possession of a crack pipe made a controlled buy at the residence where appellant was staying. He stated that officers executed a search warrant and found appellant in a back bedroom with two females. Bethel stated that officers seized numerous crack pipes, two firearms, and a large amount of crack cocaine.

Officer Summerville testified that officers seized a plastic baggie of crack cocaine that was between the wall and the bed in the room where appellant was found and that the other items, including most of the paraphernalia, were found in a front bedroom occupied by the owner of the residence. Summerville also stated that appellant had over $1,200.00 in his pocket.

Linda Card, an investigator with the South Central Drug Task Force, testified that it was likely that someone in the residence was a dealer since almost fifteen grams of crack cocaine was found and that users occupied the house also. She explained that dealers smoke less cocaine to avoid impaired judgment and that dealers stay with users who will sell the cocaine for them.

Stephanie Wilson, one of the females found in the back bedroom with appellant, testified that she saw appellant with the cocaine just before he threw the baggie to her with instructions to hide it in her genitalia and that she threw the baggie to the other female. She stated that the other female threw it on the floor near the bed just before police entered the room.

Susan Todd, the owner of the residence that was searched, testified that appellant was staying at her residence and that in lieu of rent, he would give her money and cocaine. Todd stated that she was selling drugs for appellant. She also testified that the guns found under her bed belonged to appellant and Amatullah Bell, a woman who was also staying at her residence.

Amatullah Bell, who was the second woman found in the bedroom with appellant, testified that appellant had the cocaine on him and that she "thumped" it on the floor when Wilson tossed it to her. She testified that she and appellant had both brought drugs to Arkadelphia and that they sold them but did not smoke crack cocaine. Bell stated that she and appellant both had large amounts of money on them and that appellant was her "revenue department." Finally, she stated that she owned one of the guns found in the residence and that appellant owned the other one.

Directed-verdict motions are treated as challenges to the sufficiency of the evidence. Blockman v. State, 69 Ark. App. 192, 11 S.W.3d 562 (2000). The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, whether direct or circumstantial. Miller v. State, 68 Ark. App. 332, 6 S.W.3d 812 (1999). We will affirm the convictionif there is substantial evidence to support it, when viewed in the light most favorable to the State as appellee. Bangs v. State, 338 Ark. 515, 998 S.W.2d 738 (1999).

Appellant argues that the trial court erred in denying his motion for a directed verdict. It is appellant's contention that the jury must have relied on speculation in determining his guilt. We disagree. Wilson and Bell both testified that the baggie of crack came from appellant's person. Bell described appellant as her "revenue department" and stated that she and appellant both sold drugs. Todd testified that she sold drugs for appellant who would give her money and cocaine in lieu of rent. The jury has the sole authority to evaluate the credibility of witnesses and to apportion the weight to be given to the evidence. Bell v. State, 334 Ark. 285, 937 S.W.2d 806 (1998). We conclude that appellant's conviction is supported by substantial evidence.

Appellant also argues that all but one of the nine photographs introduced into evidence by the State prejudiced him since the paraphernalia and firearms depicted in the photographs were found in areas of the residence not occupied by him. Appellant argues that the photographs were merely cumulative of the testimony from the State's witnesses and that they contained only marginal probative value that was outweighed by unfair prejudice to him. It is well settled that the admission and relevancy of photographs isa matter within the sound discretion of the trial court. Camargo v. State, 327 Ark. 631, 940 S.W.2d 464 (1997). The photographs admitted here corroborated testimony of the witnesses that appellant owned one of the guns depicted in the photographs and that he provided Todd with cocaine for her personal use and to sell for him. See Williams v. State, 338 Ark. 97, 991 S.W.2d 565 (1999). We conclude that the trial court did not abuse its discretion as the photographs admitted were relevant and corrobora tive of witnesses' testimony.

Affirmed.

Bird and Griffen, JJ., agree.