Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-402 (2026)

Case Notes

Evidence.

Evidence was sufficient to support conviction for operating a drug premises. Ramey v. State, 42 Ark. App. 242, 857 S.W.2d 828 (1993).

There was insufficient evidence to support a finding of constructive possession where there were no drugs found in plain view, in the common areas of the house, or in the bedroom occupied by defendant, and there were no statements by defendant or by anyone else suggesting that defendant knew that drugs were kept in the house, used there, or sold there. Franklin v. State, 60 Ark. App. 198, 962 S.W.2d 370 (1998).

Given that defendant owned the premises, that drugs and paraphernalia were found in common areas throughout the residence, and that methamphetamine and paraphernalia were found in his pocket, there was sufficient evidence whereby a jury could convict defendant of maintaining a drug premises. Lueken v. State, 88 Ark. App. 323, 198 S.W.3d 547 (2004).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of maintaining a drug premises because it was undisputed that defendant owned the home where the methamphetamine lab was located and because defendant admitted to police officers that the methamphetamine lab was his. Cantrell v. State, 2009 Ark. 456, 343 S.W.3d 591 (2009).

Based upon the evidence, the circuit court's denial of defendant's directed-verdict motion on the offense of maintaining a drug premise was proper. Holt v. State, 2009 Ark. 482, 348 S.W.3d 562 (2009).

Defendant was properly found guilty of maintaining a drug premises, pursuant to subdivision (a)(2) of this section, because there was substantial evidence that defendant, who continued to live at the residence at the time of the search, was in constructive possession of the contraband found in the search, and an informant testified that he made three controlled drug buys from defendant at the residence. Turner v. State, 2009 Ark. App. 822 (2009).

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of maintaining a drug premises given that an acknowledged crack house was rented to him, a confidential informant testified that he purchased drugs from defendant a day earlier, the serial numbers of money found on defendant matched the money used in the controlled buy, and drugs and paraphernalia were in plain view throughout the home. Carter v. State, 2010 Ark. 293, 367 S.W.3d 544 (2010).

There was sufficient evidence to establish that defendant was in constructive possession of a drug premises under this section, as the state presented evidence that a house was leased to a co-defendant in the name of defendant's sister and that defendant sold controlled substances out of the house and allowed others to use controlled substances there. Loggins v. State, 2010 Ark. 414, 372 S.W.3d 785 (2010).

Substantial evidence supported defendant's conviction for maintaining a drug premises in violation of this section because at the very least, there was sufficient evidence to show that defendant knew drugs were being sold from the residence where he lived and that he allowed it to occur; defendant informed a police officer that he would not find any drugs at the house, and that was supported by the allegations that defendant had been selling off-white substances in plastic baggies that field-tested positive for cocaine from the house in the days leading up to the search of the residence, as well as the fact that baggies with off-white residue were found in the master bedroom and hall closet during the search of the residence. Moseby v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 5 (2010).

Trial court did not err in convicting defendant of maintaining a drug premise because although the evidence was in conflict as to whether defendant kept or maintained the premise, it was the jury's duty to resolve such a conflict; it was apparent that the jury did not believe defendant's explanation or his wife's testimony. Singleton v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 145, 381 S.W.3d 874 (2011).

Because defendant was present in a room adjacent to a kitchen where two men were sitting with a clear plastic bag of cocaine between them, the evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of unlawful possession of a controlled substance (cocaine) and maintaining a drug premises under, inter alia, subdivision (a)(2) of this section. McDaniel v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 677 (2011).

Evidence was sufficient to support a conviction for maintaining a drug premises because appellant led an informant to an apartment for the purchase of drugs, a large amount of drugs were seized from the apartment five days later, and there were three drug-free zones within 1,000 feet of the apartment. Robelo v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 425, 421 S.W.3d 329 (2012).

Substantial evidence existed that defendant knew a dwelling was used to keep and sell controlled substances because defendant, after he was given money by a confidential informant in the living room of the trailer where defendant lived, went to a bedroom where defendant removed one gram of methamphetamine from a larger bag and placed it into a smaller bag that defendant gave to the informant. Curtis v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 167, 457 S.W.3d 700 (2015).

In a case involving drugs and weapons offenses, it was error to allow a video of law enforcement officers firing a weapon found in the search of the home to be played for the jury and admitted into evidence because it was not relevant to any of the specific offenses charged as the offenses did not require that the weapon be fireable; however, the error was harmless because the evidence against defendant was overwhelming and defendant's sentences fell within the statutory sentence ranges. Gutierrez v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 516, 472 S.W.3d 147 (2015).

Trial court properly denied defendant's motions for directed verdict and judgment notwithstanding the verdict because there was sufficient evidence to convict him of maintaining a drug premises where an investigator found, during the search of defendant's residence, a pistol, illegal drugs, a large amount of cash, bills with defendant's name and address, pictures of him and his family, communication radios, and a security camera, defendant was in the house when the search warrant was executed, the residence was located approximately 250 feet from a designated school bus stop, and defendant's knowledge of maintaining a drug premises could be inferred from the evidence. Velasco v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 454, 504 S.W.3d 650 (2016).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for maintaining a drug premises because he opened the door to the hotel room, verified that he rented the hotel room, and consented to a search of the room, though two other adults were in the room; an officer testified that defendant disclaimed ownership of all methamphetamine-related contraband and admitted ownership only of the marijuana found in his pocket; the jury could have believed that defendant owned or possessed all the contraband; and the State proved that the purpose of the room was for others to resort to for drug usage or to obtain drugs as an officer testified that certain items were paraphernalia either for the use of a drug or for the distribution or sale of a drug. Worsham v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 702, 537 S.W.3d 789 (2017).

For purposes of subdivision (a)(2) of this section, the State presented substantial evidence that defendant sold methamphetamine from the house and stored illegal substances there; her vehicle was parked at the residence on the date of the first buy, she was alone in the residence when the search warrant was executed after the second buy, plus there was a substantial amount of methamphetamine already weighed and packaged in the residence, and the confidential informant identified defendant as his source. Szczerba v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 27, 511 S.W.3d 360 (2017).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction of maintaining a drug premises given the testimony that defendant resided at the residence and knew drugs were distributed on the premises. Cave v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 212, 518 S.W.3d 134 (2017).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction for maintaining a premises for drug activity because the State did not have to prove that drug sales occurred as an element of the crime and the fact that the dwelling was used for consuming or using drugs was enough. Garner v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 101 (2020).

Cited: Jeffries v. State, 255 Ark. 501, 501 S.W.2d 600 (1973); Patty v. State, 260 Ark. 539, 542 S.W.2d 494 (1976); Brothers v. State, 261 Ark. 64, 546 S.W.2d 715 (1977); Bridges v. State, 46 Ark. App. 198, 878 S.W.2d 781 (1994); Stewart v. State, 320 Ark. 75, 894 S.W.2d 930 (1995).