Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-423 (2020)

Case Notes

Accomplice Testimony.

Defendant's motion for a directed verdict based on the claim that accomplice testimony was not credible was properly denied where testimony about the agreement between accomplice and defendant to manufacture methamphetamine for sale, and the actual manufacture, was corroborated by the presence of numerous precursor products and substances found in the search of defendant's house; in any event, the question of the accomplice's credibility was for the jury and substantial evidence supported defendant's conviction. Wilson v. State, 88 Ark. App. 158, 196 S.W.3d 511 (2004) (decision under prior law).

Evidence Sufficient.

Judgment convicting defendant of manufacturing methamphetamine, possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine, first-degree endangering the welfare of a minor under § 5-27-205(a)(1), manufacturing methamphetamine in the presence of a minor, and manufacturing methamphetamine near certain facilities was affirmed because contraband was found in the kitchen and bedroom of defendant's residence, strewn about his yard, and in an outbuilding behind his residence; the materials found in the search were the components of a methamphetamine lab; at least two of defendant's minor children were present in the residence at the time of the search; and the drug paraphernalia and chemicals found could easily be accessed by the children. Morgan v. State, 2009 Ark. 257, 308 S.W.3d 147 (2009) (decided under former § 5-64-401).

Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine where various items used in such manufacture along with defendant's identification card were found in a trailer where he was observed the night before his arrest. Coger v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 466, 529 S.W.3d 640 (2017).

Firearm Possession.

State did not have to show that defendant physically possessed the handgun in order to sustain a conviction under § 5-74-106 for its possession if the gun's location was such that it was under defendant's dominion and control; the gun in defendant's kitchen next to items used to manufacture methamphetamine sufficiently met that burden. Cherry v. State, 80 Ark. App. 222, 95 S.W.3d 5 (2003) (decided under former § 5-64-401).

Lesser-Included Offenses.

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not objecting that defendants' convictions violated double jeopardy under § 5-1-110(b) because possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine was not a lesser-included offense of manufacturing methamphetamine. Myers v. State, 2012 Ark. 143, 400 S.W.3d 231 (2012) (decided under former § 5-64-401).

Defense counsel was not ineffective for not objecting that defendants' convictions violated double jeopardy because possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver was not a lesser-included offense of manufacturing methamphetamine. Myers v. State, 2012 Ark. 143, 400 S.W.3d 231 (2012) (decided under former § 5-64-401).

Manufacture.

There was sufficient evidence to support a conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine based on accomplice liability where the evidence showed that drug manufacturing was taking place on defendant's property, defendant admitted knowledge of the operation, and a co-defendant also testified regarding defendant's knowledge of the operation. George v. State, 356 Ark. 345, 151 S.W.3d 770 (2004) (decided under former § 5-64-401).

There was substantial evidence to support defendant's conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine because, although there was no HCL generator discovered in the search of defendant's house, a substance identified as methamphetamine oil was found, which was the second-to-last stage in the process of manufacturing methamphetamine; although the manufacturing process was not finished, it had proceeded to all but the final stage, and the components necessary for completion had been assembled. Dodson v. State, 88 Ark. App. 380, 199 S.W.3d 115 (2004) (decided under former § 5-64-401).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for manufacturing methamphetamine where multiple ingredients and devices used in methamphetamine production were found together with the by-products of such production in defendant's van, as well as actual methamphetamine. Saul v. State, 365 Ark. 77, 225 S.W.3d 373 (2006) (decided under former § 5-64-401) .