William Keith McDaniel v. State of Arkansas

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN MAUZY PITTMAN, JUDGE

DIVISION III

WILLIAM KEITH MCDANIEL

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR02-325

February 12, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE CROSS COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-2000-226]

HON. L. T. SIMES II,

JUDGE

AFFIRMED

The appellant in this criminal case was arrested in a friend's house where appellant had been residing when police appeared to serve a failure-to-appear warrant upon him. The owner of the house had been gone and returned just as the police arrived. The owner's son was in the home with appellant. The house had a very strong odor of chemicals and there was a very large quantity of methamphetamine precursors and manufacturing supplies. Appellant was convicted of attempted manufacture of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia. This appeal followed.

Appellant concedes that there was sufficient evidence to show that someone was manufacturing methamphetamine in the house. His sole argument is that the evidence was insufficient to connect him to the contraband. We affirm.

The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Stanton v. State, 344 Ark. 589,

42 S.W.3d 474 (2001). Substantial evidence is evidence that is of sufficient certainty and precision to compel a conclusion one way or another and pass beyond mere suspicion or conjecture; on appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, considering only that evidence that supports the verdict. Id.

In the present case, the record shows that there were two other occupants of the house, the owner and the owner's son. However, both of them testified that they were not at home on the morning in question; that there was no contraband or odor in their home when they left it; and that they returned to find appellant in the kitchen and a strong chemical smell that had not been there when they left. Significantly, both men were permitted to testify without any objection being made to their possible status as accomplices; consequently, this issue was waived, and it is therefore not necessary to seek corroboration for their testimony linking appellant to the contraband. Cook v. State, 77 Ark. App. 20, 73 S.W.3d 1 (2002); compare Miles v. State, 76 Ark. App. 255, 64 S.W.3d 759 (2001). Under these circumstances, we hold that there was substantial evidence that the contraband was immediately and exclusively accessible to appellant and subject to his dominion and control, and that his conviction is therefore supported by substantial evidence. See Miles v. State, supra.

Affirmed.

Robbins and Crabtree, JJ., agree.