Hawthorne v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 635
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CACR09-154
Opinion Delivered SEPTEMBER
MELVIN HAWTHORNE
APPELLANT
V.
STATE OF ARKANSAS
30, 2009
APPEAL FROM THE GARLAND
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT,
[NO. CR-07-115-1]
HONORABLE JOHN HOMER
WRIGHT, JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
DAVID M. GLOVER, Judge
Appellant, Melvin Hawthorne, was tried by a jury and found guilty of the offenses of
possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver (crack cocaine) and simultaneous
possession of drugs and firearms. He was sentenced as an habitual offender to thirty years in
the Arkansas Department of Correction. As his sole point of appeal, appellant challenges the
sufficiency of the evidence to support his convictions, arguing that the evidence found in a
jointly occupied bedroom should have been suppressed. We affirm.
Standard of Review
In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in
a light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict.
Morgan v. State, 2009 Ark. 257, ____ S.W.3d ____. We affirm a conviction if substantial
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 635
evidence exists to support it. Id. Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and
character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other,
without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id. Furthermore, circumstantial evidence may
provide a basis to support a conviction, but it must be consistent with the defendant’s guilt
and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion. Id. Whether the evidence excludes
every other hypothesis is left to the jury to decide. Id. The credibility of witnesses is an issue
for the jury and not the court. Id. The trier of fact is free to believe all or part of any witness’s
testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and inconsistent evidence. Id.
The evidence in this case can be quickly summarized. Reports of high traffic going
in and out of the house located at 117 Spartan Place in Hot Springs, Arkansas, prompted the
police to engage a confidential informant to go there and make three controlled buys of crack
cocaine. As a result, a search warrant was obtained, and a SWAT team was employed to
secure the premises. During the execution of the warrant, appellant was located in a back
bedroom — heading toward a bathroom. His girlfriend, Karen Maxie, was also in the back
bedroom on a bed. Two other men were also in the house in a front bedroom.
A search of the back bedroom where appellant and Maxie were found revealed
approximately thirty-two grams of crack cocaine, which were located in plain view on top
of a computer next to the bed. A loaded .45 caliber semi-automatic gun was found beneath
the mattress within six feet of the cocaine. Also found on the table next to the cocaine were
-2-
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 635
digital scales with cocaine residue, plastic baggies, and razor blades. Eight hundred seventythree dollars in cash was found in appellant’s front pocket. Clothes belonging to appellant
were found in the back bedroom where the challenged evidence, appellant, and Maxie were
located.
In addition, Maxie and appellant both testified. Maxie testified that she and appellant
had shared the back bedroom for three to four months. She explained that the gun was hers
and that appellant knew nothing about it. She also denied that she was aware of the crack
cocaine in the bedroom. Appellant testified and acknowledged that he shared the bedroom
with Maxie and that he had two prior convictions for crack cocaine. He denied any
knowledge of the cocaine, paraphernalia, or gun.
It is not necessary that the State prove literal physical possession of contraband.
Morgan v. State, supra. Contraband is deemed to be constructively possessed if the location of
the contraband was under the dominion and control of the accused. Id. We have held that
constructive possession exists where joint occupancy of the premises occurs and where there
are additional factors linking the accused to the contraband. Id. Those additional factors
include: (a) whether the accused exercised care, control, and management over the
contraband; and (b) whether the accused knew the material was contraband. Id. Control
and knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances, such as the proximity of the
-3-
Cite as 2009 Ark. App. 635
contraband to the accused, the fact that it is in plain view, and the ownership of the property
where the contraband is found. Id.
Here, appellant’s connection to both the gun and the crack cocaine was sufficiently
established. The cocaine was in plain view in a bedroom that he admittedly occupied, and
three controlled buys of cocaine had been made at the house. The gun — even though not
in plain view — was located under the mattress of the bed in the bedroom admittedly
occupied by appellant and Maxie; it was on the side of the bed closest to the cocaine and
opposite the side of the bed where Maxie was located. The jury clearly did not credit either
appellant’s or Maxie’s testimony that appellant knew nothing about the gun. Based on the
evidence before it, the jury’s inference that the gun belonged to appellant was consistent with
appellant’s guilt and inconsistent with any other reasonable conclusion.
Affirmed.
GLADWIN and HENRY, JJ., agree.
-4-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.