Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-443 (2026)

Case Notes

Constitutionality.

Acts 1981, No. 78, which criminalized the possession, use, sale and manufacture of drug paraphernalia, is not unconstitutionally overbroad even though the act may prevent persons from utilizing the expressions imprinted on, or the symbolic speech represented by the use of, drug paraphernalia. Garner v. White, 726 F.2d 1274 (8th Cir. 1984); Edwards v. State, 300 Ark. 4, 775 S.W.2d 900 (1989).

Statutory provisions concerning the term “drug paraphernalia” are not unconstitutionally vague for want of “certainty” or “definiteness,” since they give a person of ordinary intelligence fair notice that his contemplated conduct is forbidden. Moore v. State, 297 Ark. 296, 761 S.W.2d 894 (1988) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

The drug paraphernalia law is not unconstitutionally vague, because the detailed definitions found in the statute give adequate notice of conduct constituting the offense. Crail v. State, 309 Ark. 120, 827 S.W.2d 157 (1992) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

State was authorized to seek the greatest penalty, the Class B felony, where drug paraphernalia is possessed with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine; further, the statutory provision was not so vague and standardless that it allowed for arbitrary and discriminatory enforcement, nor did the fact that the prosecutor exercised discretion in seeking the maximum penalty give rise to a constitutional infringement. Osborne v. State, 94 Ark. App. 337, 230 S.W.3d 290 (2006) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Bond.

Because the appellate court affirmed the trial court's judgment convicting defendant of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture and possession of a controlled substance, defendant's issue of bail pending appeal became moot and the appellate court did not have to decide moot issues; the appropriate and meaningful action that defendant could have taken would have been to petition the appellate court for a writ of certiorari separately challenging the trial court's denial of an appeal bond. Walley v. State, 353 Ark. 586, 112 S.W.3d 349 (2003) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Dismissal Denied.

Motion to dismiss was properly denied in a case involving possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia because a crack pipe constituted paraphernalia under § 5-64-101; further, there was sufficient evidence of intent where defendant admitted the pipe was his, cocaine residue was found on the pipe, and defendant admitted to using it to smoke cocaine in the past. White v. State, 98 Ark. App. 366, 255 S.W.3d 881 (2007) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence.

Court erroneously precluded state from introducing evidence of officer concerning use of antenna, found on the defendant, as drug paraphernalia. State v. Crutchfield, 306 Ark. 104, 816 S.W.2d 884 (1991) (supplemental op. on rehearing) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

The trial evidence would have been sufficient to support defendant's conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia had the court allowed testimony from the officer concerning use of antenna, found on defendant, as drug paraphernalia; therefore, the case was remanded for retrial on the charge of possession of drug paraphernalia. State v. Crutchfield, 306 Ark. 104, 816 S.W.2d 884 (1991) (supplemental op. on rehearing) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

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).

Evidence Insufficient.

In a drug paraphernalia case, the evidence was insufficient to sustain defendant's conviction where police found no paraphernalia on defendant; rather, it was found some distance away from where defendant was stopped and there were no affirmative links between defendant and the paraphernalia. Garner v. State, 355 Ark. 82, 131 S.W.3d 734 (2003) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence Sufficient.

Evidence held sufficient to support a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia. Crossley v. State, 304 Ark. 378, 802 S.W.2d 459 (1991); Ramey v. State, 42 Ark. App. 242, 857 S.W.2d 828 (1993); Stephenson v. State, 334 Ark. 520, 975 S.W.2d 830 (1998) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence of possession with intent to deliver a controlled substance (marijuana) and possession with intent to use drug paraphernalia held sufficient. Bond v. State, 45 Ark. App. 177, 873 S.W.2d 569 (1994) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence of possession of marijuana, possession of drug paraphernalia, and possession of an illicit whiskey still, found in defendant's residence, held sufficient. White v. State, 47 Ark. App. 127, 886 S.W.2d 876 (1994) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence was sufficient to convict the defendant of possession of drug paraphernalia where the defendant possessed a cigar case in which methamphetamine and marijuana were hidden; the jury could have concluded that the case was used as a container to conceal controlled substances. Sanders v. State, 76 Ark. App. 104, 61 S.W.3d 871 (2001), cert. denied, 537 U.S. 815, 123 S. Ct. 82, 154 L. Ed. 2d 19 (2002) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain a drug paraphernalia possession conviction where the syringe in defendant's pocket was in close proximity to the methamphetamine found in the plastic bags behind his driver's seat. Jones v. State, 357 Ark. 545, 182 S.W.3d 485 (2004) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia because defendant lived in the residence, and at no point did he deny an ownership or possessory interest in the residence. Testimony established that items of paraphernalia, the spoon with residue, the light bulb, the scales, and the plastic baggies were found in plain view in the southeast bedroom and that the items would have been noticeable to anyone who lived in residence. Tryon v. State, 371 Ark. 25, 263 S.W.3d 475 (2007) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

There was substantial evidence that defendant exercised care, control, and management over contraband, where: (1) he lived at the house where the contraband was discovered, (2) a police officer found several illegal items lying in close proximity to defendant, and (3) there was no evidence that there were other suspects in the home at the time of the raid that may have also lived there. Allen v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 266 (2010) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant’s conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia because he was present at the scene where the drug paraphernalia was in plain view and he admitted to being aware of what was going on and that he planned to help with the manufacture of methamphetamine by getting lithium batteries. Collier v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 244 (2014).

There was sufficient evidence to support a conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia under this section because, despite defendant's argument that certain evidence should have been suppressed, the appellate court considered all of the evidence introduced at trial and disregarded any trial errors. Drug paraphernalia was found in a vehicle where defendant was a passenger, a search of defendant's person revealed a syringe and a syringe cap, and he made a statement about getting high on methamphetamine. Tennant v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 81 (2015).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia under subsection (b) of this section, where the informant testified that defendant had used a scale to weigh the drugs. Childers v. State, 2016 Ark. App. 371, 498 S.W.3d 742 (2016).

Substantial evidence supported defendant's convictions for possession of methamphetamine and drug paraphernalia, where the testimony showed that he had tossed and hid items in an attempt to conceal them from the police, and the police recovered a baggie and a pipe that were thrown out of the side of the vehicle. Payne v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 263, 520 S.W.3d 719 (2017).

Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia to ingest methamphetamine because an officer found such items when conducting an inventory search of defendant's vehicle. Coger v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 466, 529 S.W.3d 640 (2017).

Because defendant's motion for a directed verdict on possession of drug paraphernalia did not inform the circuit court of the specific issues in the State's case that were now being challenged, the question of the sufficiency of evidence was not preserved for appeal; even so, the evidence was sufficient, as defendant informed the deputy that everything in the vehicle belonged to him and that the other occupants had nothing to do with the narcotics. Martin v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 19, 567 S.W.3d 558 (2019).

—Methamphetamine Manufacture.

Trial court properly denied defendant's motion for directed verdict on his convictions for possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture and possession of a controlled substance because the evidence sufficiently linked defendant to the contraband in that it showed that: (1) there was an operational methamphetamine lab in the kitchen of the shared residence; (2) numerous items used for the manufacture of crystal methamphetamine were seized from the residence; (3) drug paraphernalia was also found in a burn barrel near the residence and in the trash can on the back porch, indicating an ongoing drug manufacturing process; (4) the trash bags found on the side of the road alerted the drug task force to the existence of an illegal drug lab and included a receipt from a store that listed several items used to manufacture crystal methamphetamine that was traced to defendant; and (5) the jury was not required to believe defendant's statements regarding items found in his office and his denial of any knowledge of the contraband. Walley v. State, 353 Ark. 586, 112 S.W.3d 349 (2003) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

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 possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine and of being an accomplice to drug crimes. Lueken v. State, 88 Ark. App. 323, 198 S.W.3d 547 (2004) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain defendant's conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine because defendant's control and knowledge of the drug could be inferred from the circumstances where (1) although defendant claimed he was burning his wife's methamphetamine lab, he knew it was a methamphetamine lab, (2) the wife testified that defendant manufactured methamphetamine on a regular basis and that he sold or traded the methamphetamine he produced, (3) items associated with the production of methamphetamine were scattered throughout defendant's house, some in plain view, and (4) defendant's hands were stained with iodine, an ingredient used in the manufacturing process. Dodson v. State, 88 Ark. App. 380, 199 S.W.3d 115 (2004) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Trial court erred in reversing defendant's conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine as his conviction was supported by sufficient evidence, including (1) testimony from a police officer who saw defendant buy iodine and found other items used to manufacture methamphetamine at defendant's home, (2) testimony from defendant's parole officer regarding defendant's prior convictions relating to methamphetamine, and (3) expert testimony concerning how the items found in defendant's possession were used to manufacture methamphetamine. Cluck v. State, 365 Ark. 166, 226 S.W.3d 780 (2006) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence was sufficient to sustain a conviction for possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine where an accomplice testified that defendant was inside his residence “cleaning up a cook” and “bagging everything up”; that testimony was corroborated by an officer who stated that, when he entered the home, defendant was in close proximity to the manufacturing items that were seized from the residence. Fitting v. State, 94 Ark. App. 283, 229 S.W.3d 568 (2006) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

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 § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture because the jury could reasonably conclude that defendant constructively possessed the paraphernalia with intent to manufacture where defendant owned the property jointly with his wife, defendant was the only person in the house when the police arrived, and defendant admitted to the officers that the methamphetamine lab in the home was his. Cantrell v. State, 2009 Ark. 456, 343 S.W.3d 591 (2009) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Defendant was convicted of possessing drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture; based on the evidence of defendant's proximity to the manufacturing paraphernalia, the circuit court did not err in denying defendant's directed-verdict motion. Holt v. State, 2009 Ark. 482, 348 S.W.3d 562 (2009) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Trial court did not err in revoking defendant's suspended sentence on the ground that he committed the offense of possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture methamphetamine because the evidence showed that a reliable source had tipped off the police to the fact that defendant, contrary to the terms and conditions of his release, was continuing to manufacture methamphetamine, and defendant directed the purchases and provided an explanation for each component of the methamphetamine recipe; it was shown that defendant conceived and proposed the methamphetamine cook, buy, and sell arrangement for the manufacture and distribution of the illegal substance, and simply by asserting the defense of entrapment, § 5-2-209, defendant necessarily admitted committing the offense. Lowe v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 284 (2010) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence that there was a funnel, plastic tubing, coffee filters, camp fuel, syringes, gloves, a metal spoon, a smoking device, a bag of ammonia nitrate, and a pill crusher in the master bedroom of defendant's home, along with a burn barrel in the back yard, was sufficient to support a conviction for possession of paraphernalia with intent to manufacture. Gowen v. State, 2011 Ark. App. 761, 387 S.W.3d 230 (2011) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Sufficient evidence supported a finding that defendant had the intent to manufacture methamphetamine because the jury could choose to believe that defendant knew the iodine he possessed was going to be used to make methamphetamine, despite his argument that he bought it for a friend and that no other ingredients were found. Ashley v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 131, 388 S.W.3d 914 (2012) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Sufficient evidence supported defendant's conviction for possessing drug paraphernalia to manufacture methamphetamine as items necessary for the manufacture of methamphetamine were found in a trailer in which defendant's identification card was also found and in which he was observed the night before his arrest. Coger v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 466, 529 S.W.3d 640 (2017).

Harmless Error.

In a prosecution for possession and delivery of a drug, erroneous admission of certain drug paraphernalia was harmless error where there was overwhelming evidence to support a conviction. Hicks v. State, 327 Ark. 652, 941 S.W.2d 387 (1997).

Lesser-Included Offenses.

Trial court did not err in failing to give lesser-included offense instruction because possession of pseudoephedrine with intent to manufacture methamphetamine under § 5-64-1102(a)(1) was not a lesser-included offense of possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine under former § 5-64-403(c)) (now this section); the paraphernalia offense requires the intent to “use” the drug paraphernalia to manufacture methamphetamine, while § 5-64-1102(a)(1) does not and, therefore, the two statutes contain different elements. Autrey v. State, 90 Ark. App. 131, 204 S.W.3d 84 (2005).

Possession of a controlled substance does not require the simultaneous possession of paraphernalia, and possession of paraphernalia does not require the simultaneous possession of a controlled substance; the elements of the two offenses can be completely exclusive of each other and neither is a lesser-included offense of the other. Koster v. State, 374 Ark. 74, 286 S.W.3d 152 (2008) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Motion to Suppress.

Where defendant appealed his convictions for violating subsection (c) of this section and § 5-64-420, circuit court's decision to deny his motion to suppress the evidence was not clearly against the preponderance of the evidence. Because he met the officers on his front porch with a rifle, an officer reasonably detained and frisked him to ensure the officers' safety, and the contraband was discovered when, after the valid frisk, defendant voluntarily pulled the contraband out of his pocket and showed it to the officer. King v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 81, 432 S.W.3d 127 (2014).

Possession.

Where contraband is discovered in jointly occupied premises and there is no direct evidence that it belongs to a particular occupant, some additional factors must be present linking the accused to the contraband; the state must prove that the accused exercised care, control and management over the contraband. Garner v. State, 355 Ark. 82, 131 S.W.3d 734 (2003) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence was sufficient to convict defendant of several possession-related offenses given that a 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 drug paraphernalia were in plain view in the home. Carter v. State, 2010 Ark. 293, 367 S.W.3d 544 (2010) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Evidence supported a finding that defendant was in constructive possession of drug paraphernalia, as although a house was jointly occupied, there was evidence that defendant told a law enforcement officer that defendant lived there, and that there were male personal effects in the bedroom; a jury could reasonably infer that defendant knew the drug paraphernalia was contraband and that defendant exercised control over it. Burrow v. State, 2010 Ark. App. 692 (2010) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Since the testimony was that only defendant and his girlfriend were in the girlfriend's home, and they both agreed that the girlfriend was not involved in drugs, the jury could reasonably infer that as the only other adult in the home defendant exercised control over the contraband and knew it was contraband. Matlock v. State, 2015 Ark. App. 65, 454 S.W.3d 776 (2015).

Evidence was sufficient to support defendant's convictions of felony theft by receiving, possession of methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia, as defendant was in constructive possession of the contraband found at the residence; although another individual also was in the residence at the time of the search, defendant had listed the residence as his address, the contraband was found in plain view in common areas in and around the house, and the fact that defendant was in a bedroom hiding under a bed when the search commenced did not negate the additional factors linking him to the contraband. Mudd v. State, 2018 Ark. App. 628, 565 S.W.3d 154 (2018).

Substantial evidence supported defendant's convictions for possession of methamphetamine and possession of paraphernalia because (1) defendant admitted she had smoked methamphetamine that day, (2) defendant owned the house where the methamphetamine was found hidden in a water-heater closet, (3) defendant could not disclaim possession due to being absent when the search warrant was executed, (4) the jury was not required to believe defendant's testimony suggesting that another person had hid the drugs in her residence, and (5) defendant's knowledge of and control over the contraband found in her residence could be inferred from the circumstances. Knauls v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 48 (2020).

Evidence was insufficient to support defendant's conviction of possession of drug paraphernalia because the State did not present substantial evidence that defendant constructively possessed a methamphetamine pipe that was found in a tin inside a kitchen cabinet in a jointly occupied house. Another occupant was the only person present when the search warrant was executed, and he was found with methamphetamine and paraphernalia on his person and admitted using it. The jury would have had to speculate to conclude that the pipe belonged to defendant rather than someone else. Garner v. State, 2020 Ark. App. 101 (2020).

Search.

In a possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture and possession of a controlled substance case, the search warrant was valid and the trial court properly denied defendant's motion to suppress the evidence seized from the shared residence where: (1) the distinctive odor of a methamphetamine lab was a valid contributing factor in establishing probable cause for the warrant; (2) the search warrant was supported by more than mere conclusory statements; (3) the initial search of the residence was limited to the common area outside the residence where no warrant was required, and the search inside the residence was pursuant to a search warrant; (4) even if the landlord's statements were completely eliminated, there were still sufficient facts to support probable cause to search the residence; and (5) the partially incorrect address listed in the search warrant did not make the search warrant defective, especially since the affidavit correctly identified the residence and the officer who had obtained the search warrant and had previously been to the residence would later, himself, conduct the search. Walley v. State, 353 Ark. 586, 112 S.W.3d 349 (2003) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Sentencing.

Felony convictions for the related offenses of possession of a controlled substance and possession of drug paraphernalia under this section fall under two separate statutes and are not considered one offense for the purposes of sentencing under § 5-4-501. McCullough v. State, 44 Ark. App. 99, 866 S.W.2d 845 (1993) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Where defendant was guilty of manufacturing methamphetamine, and possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture methamphetamine, and the circuit court sentenced him as a habitual offender pursuant to § 5-4-501, the sentence was illegal because under § 5-4-301(a)(2), the circuit court did not have the authority to suspend 10 years of the 15-year sentence it imposed. State v. O'Quinn, 2013 Ark. 219, 427 S.W.3d 668 (2013) (decided under former §§ 5-64-401, 5-64-403(c)).

Suppression of Evidence.

Contact between defendant and an officer was the result of an investigation into drug-related criminal activity, not a routine traffic stop, because the officer blocked the vehicle in the driveway, demanded that defendant move to the back of the vehicle, informed her that he knew there were drugs in the vehicle, and asked where they were located. Defendant's pre-Miranda statement should have been suppressed. James v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 118, 390 S.W.3d 95 (2012) (decided under former § 5-64-403(c)).

Cited: A.W. v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 34, 510 S.W.3d 811 (2017).