Summary
The Arkansas Court of Appeals affirmed Jasmine Leigh Chambers’s conviction for possession of more than two grams of methamphetamine with the purpose to deliver. The court held that, because the conviction was based on accomplice liability, Chambers’s challenge concerning actual or constructive possession did not address the theory supporting the verdict. Her failure to develop an argument contesting accomplice liability precluded appellate review.
Holdings
- A contraband-possession conviction premised on accomplice liability can stand without proof of constructive possession by the defendant.
- The conviction was affirmed because Chambers did not present an appellate argument controverting the accomplice liability found by the jury.
Questions Presented
- Whether substantial evidence supported Chambers's conviction for possession of more than two grams of methamphetamine with purpose to deliver when the conviction was based on accomplice liability.
- Whether the conviction could be sustained without proof that Chambers actually or constructively possessed the methamphetamine found on McWilliams and in the vehicle.
Disposition
affirmed
Cases Cited (8)
- Collins v. State, 2021 Ark. 35, at 4, 617 S.W.3d 701, 704(followed)
- Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323, at 4, 588 S.W.3d 1, 4(followed)
- McKisick v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 426, at 4, 653 S.W.3d 839, 843(followed)
- Winters v. State, 2013 Ark. 193, at 12, 427 S.W.3d 597, 605(followed)
- B.T. v. State, 2019 Ark. App. 471, at 12, 588 S.W.3d 387, 394-95(followed)
- Lueken v. State, 88 Ark. App. 323, 331, 198 S.W.3d 547, 553 (2004)(followed)
- Criswell v. State, 2026 Ark. App. 6, at 5(followed)
- Smith v. Heather Manor Care Ctr., Inc., 2012 Ark. App. 584, at 7, 424 S.W.3d 368, 375(followed)
Cited In (0)
No citing cases on record yet.
Court Document
Open PDFLoading document…