ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

JOHN E. JENNINGS, JUDGE

DIVISION I

CACR 00-1084

May 9, 2001

KATHERINE WARD APPEAL FROM PULASKI COUNTY

APPELLANT CIRCUIT COURT

VS.

HONORABLE MARION HUMPHREY,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE AFFIRMED

The appellant, Katherine Ward, was found guilty by a Pulaski County jury of maintaining a drug premises within 1,000 feet of a school, a violation of Arkansas Code Annotated §§ 5-64-402(a)(3) and (c)(2), for which she was sentenced to twenty-four years in prison. As her sole issue on appeal, appellant argues that there is insufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict. We disagree and affirm.

In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the appellee and affirm the conviction if there is substantial evidence to support it. Ramey v. State, 42 Ark. App. 242, 857 S.W.2d 828 (1993). Substan tial evidence is evidence that is forceful enough to compel a conclusion that goes beyond speculation or conjecture. White v. State, 47 Ark. App. 127, 886 S.W.2d 876 (1994). On review, we need consider only that testimony that supports the verdict of guilt. Springston v. State, 61 Ark. App. 36, 962 S.W.2d 836 (1998).

Evidence at trial may be both direct and circumstantial; in fact the law makes no distinction between the two, either being sufficient for a finding of guilt. Duncan v. State, 38 Ark. App. 47, 828 S.W.2d 847 (1992). The longstanding rule in the use of circumstantial evidence is that the evidence must exclude every other reasonable hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused to be substantial. Gregory v. State, 341 Ark. 243, 15 S.W.3d 690 (2000). Whether the evidence excludes every reasonable hypothesis is left to the jury to determine. Sera v. State, 341 Ark. 415, 17 S.W.3d 61 (2000).

Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-402(a)(3) (Repl. 1999) provides that it is unlawful for any person to knowingly keep or maintain any dwelling which is resorted to by persons for the purpose of using or obtaining controlled substances. This offenseis classified as a class B felony if the violation is committed within 1,000 feet of a public school. After receiving numerous complaints about drug activities going on at 2625 West Fourteenth Street in Little Rock, law enforcement officers conducted a controlled drug buy at the residence using a confidential informant on Tuesday, May 26, 1998. Hours later, based on that purchase, the officers secured a search warrant for the premises which they executed at 2:18 a.m. Entry was made through the front door which opened into a living room. Behind the living room, there was a dining room that was furnished with a wooden table and chairs. The officers first encountered a woman identified as Janice Cole in the dining room. She was brandishing a large butcher knife and had to be forcibly subdued. In the chair where Ms. Cole had been sitting, the officers found a rock of crack cocaine. Appellant was also in the area of the dining room. On the hardwood floor, underneath the dining room table, the officers found another rock of crack cocaine. On top of the dining-room table, there was a cellular phone bill in appellant's name showing a past-due account. The bill listed appellant's address as this residence on Fourteenth Street. Ms. Cole's purse was located in the kitchen. In it, the officers found a crack pipe. Appellant's purse was also found in the kitchen. Her purse contained $170.00 in cash.

In one of the bedrooms, the officers discovered a man named Willie Jones lying on the bed. A rock of crack cocaine was found underneath Jones when he was removed from the bed. A crack pipe was found sitting on the nearby window sill. In the other bedroom, checks made out to appellant were found in a dresser drawer. Several handguns and $180.00 in cash were found in the closet, which was said to contain some women's clothing. A shotgun was found under the bed.

For reversal, appellant contends that there is insufficient evidence establishing that she had knowledge of the drug activities occurring at the house. We cannot agree. It is important to remember that jurors do not and need not view each fact in isolation, but rather jurors may consider the evidence as a whole in arriving at a verdict. See Bridges v. State, 46 Ark. App. 198, 878 S.W.2d 781 (1994). Here, there was evidence that a rock of cocaine was found on the floor in close proximity to where appellant was located in the house. The officer who seized this rock testified that it was plainly visible on the hardwood floor. There was evidence that a controlled drug buy was made just hours before the search was conducted. And, at the time of the search, which took place in the wee hours of the morning, there were two people in the home that were directly linked to drug usage. Ms. Cole had a crack pipe in her purse, and a rock of cocaine wasfound in the chair in which she had been sitting. A rock of cocaine was found underneath Mr. Jones, and a crack pipe was found nearby. In addition, there was evidence connecting appellant to a bedroom where several weapons were located. We hold that there is substantial evidence to support the verdict.

Affirmed.

Bird and Griffen, JJ., agree.