Lester Herbert Adams v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

TERRY CRABTREE, JUDGE

DIVISION I

LESTER HERBERT ADAMS

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 01-964

JUNE 5, 2002

APPEAL FROM THE CLEVELAND COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR 00-33-5]

HONORABLE LARRY CHANDLER,

JUDGE

AFFIRMED

A jury sitting in the Cleveland County Circuit Court convicted the appellant, Lester Herbert Adams, of manufacturing methamphetamine and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine. The trial court sentenced him to a total of twenty years' imprisonment in the Arkansas Department of Correction. On appeal, appellant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, arguing that his convictions rest solely on the uncorroborated testimony of an accomplice. We affirm.

A directed-verdict motion is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Ward v. State, 64 Ark. App. 120, 981 S.W.2d 96 (1998). When the sufficiency of the evidence is challenged, we consider only the evidence that supports the verdict, viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Harris v. State, 72 Ark. App. 227, 35 S.W.3d 819 (2000). The test is whether there is substantial evidence to support the verdict, which is

evidence that is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or another. Id. Resolution of conflicts in testimony and assessment of witness credibility is for the fact-finder. Id.

On July 9, 2000, Cleveland County Sheriff's Deputy Trent Vollmer, who is employed with the Tenth Judicial Drug Task Force and trained to investigate the manufacture of methamphetamine, responded to a call from Chief Deputy Jack Rogers concerning the manufacture of methamphetamine at an address on Hollis Road. Deputy Vollmer testified that when he arrived on Hollis Road and exited his vehicle, he noticed a strong odor of ether. He stated that based upon his training and experience, he knew that the odor of ether was associated with methamphetamine manufacturing. He proceeded to the door of the trailer and was greeted by Brandi Hollis, who let him inside. Upon entering the residence, Deputy Vollmer saw appellant come out from behind a curtain toward the back of the trailer. Deputy Vollmer subsequently obtained consent from Brandi Hollis to search the trailer, which was owned by her father.

Deputy Vollmer testified that, during the search of the trailer, he used a flashlight rather than an overhead light because he feared that the slightest spark could ignite the overwhelming presence of ether. The deputy testified that he stopped his search because the chemical smell in the back bedroom was unbearable. After retrieving a gas mask and gloves, he resumed the search. According to Deputy Vollmer, the search revealed the presence of all the materials necessary for manufacturing methamphetamine, including ephedrine tablets, starting fluid, lithium strips, various types of solvents, Mason jars, coffee filters, emptyplastic soda bottles, and a tank of anhydrous ammonia. These materials were found inside the residence, as well as in a trash bag found in appellant's trunk. Additional materials were found in a burn pile in front of the residence.

Brandi Hollis testified that appellant was involved in the manufacturing of methamphetamine. Ms. Hollis testified that she saw appellant punch holes in the cans of starting fluid to extract the ether, peel batteries to expose lithium strips, and carry the jar of ammonia to the back bedroom. She further testified that appellant was using methamphetamine on July 9, 2000, and that she personally injected him with methamphetamine.

Appellant asserts that the State failed to corroborate the testimony of Ms. Hollis, and therefore, his convictions cannot stand. An accomplice's testimony is corroborated if evidence, independent of the accomplice's testimony, establishes the commission of the offense and tends to connect the defendant with it. Ark. Code Ann. § 16-9-111(e)(1) (Supp. 2001). However, the corroborating evidence need not be so substantial in and of itself to sustain a conviction. Flowers v. State, 342 Ark. 45, 25 S.W.3d 422 (2000). When reviewing the issue on appeal, the testimony of the accomplice is eliminated and the remainder of the State's evidence is examined to determine if it independently establishes the crime and tends to connect appellant with its commission. Andrews v. State, 344 Ark. 606, 42 S.W.3d 485 (2001). When circumstantial evidence is used to corroborate accomplice testimony, all evidence may be considered to constitute a chain sufficient to present a question to the jury as to the adequacy of the corroboration, and we will not look to see whether every otherreasonable hypothesis but that of guilt has been excluded. Johnson v. State, 303 Ark. 12, 792 S.W.2d 863 (1990).

In the case at bar, the evidence independent of Ms. Hollis's testimony is sufficient to establish the crimes and connect appellant with their commission. The State presented evidence that all of the ingredients, solvents, chemicals, and hardware necessary to manufacture methamphetamine were present in the trailer where police found appellant. In addition, cans of starting fluid, a key ingredient in the manufacturing of methamphetamine, were found in the trunk of appellant's car, and appellant testified that he knew the cans were used in the manufacturing process. Finally, the State established that when the officers arrived at the residence, Deputy Vollmer had to use a gas mask to conduct a search of the premises because the odor of ether was overwhelming. This indicated to the officers that methamphetamine had been manufactured that day.

We recognize that appellant testified that he did not smell the chemical odor until the police arrived, and that he was picking up the starting fluid cans to protect Ms. Hollis. However, his testimony is not consistent with other evidence. The jury is not required to lay aside its common sense in evaluating the ordinary affairs of life, and it may infer a defendant's guilt from improbable explanations of incriminating conduct. See Martin v. State, 346 Ark. 198, 57 S.W.3d 136 (2001). Furthermore, Deputy Vollmer testified that he witnessed appellant coming from the back of the trailer where the manufacturing was taking place. The presence of an accused in the proximity of a crime, opportunity, and association with a person involved in the crime are relevant facts in determining the connection of anaccomplice with the crime. Passley v. State, 323 Ark. 301, 915 S.W.2d 248 (1996).

The State presented sufficient evidence to corroborate Ms. Hollis's testimony, which included the fact that appellant was present at the crime scene, that he was in possession of materials used to manufacture methamphetamine, and that he testified falsely concerning the overwhelming chemical odor noticed by the police. Therefore, we hold that sufficient evidence supports appellant's convictions.

Stroud, CJ., and Bird, J., agree.