NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION

ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

JUDGE KAREN R. BAKER

DIVISION II

JOHN RAGSDALE

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR01-00106

SEPTEMBER 5, 2001

APPEAL FROM THE MILLER COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR1999-527]

HONORABLE JOE EDWARD GRIFFIN,

CIRCUIT JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Appellant appeals a jury verdict convicting appellant of possession of methamphetamine with intent to deliver and sentencing him to forty years in the Arkansas Department of Correction. The State charged the appellant and his accomplice, Clara Stockton, after the police discovered a plastic bag containing twenty-five grams of methamphetamine powder under the passenger's seat of the appellant's vehicle. At trial, appellant moved for a directed verdict, arguing that the State failed to prove he had possession of the controlled substance, knowledge that it was in his vehicle, or any interest in it. On appeal, he challenges the trial court's denial of his motion asserting that the State failed to sufficiently corroborate accomplice Stockton's testimony. We find no error and affirm.

While it is questionable whether appellant properly preserved his argument regarding corroboration of the accomplice's testimony, we address the merits and hold that sufficient evidence corroborates Stockton's testimony.

In challenging the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence, appellant relies upon Arkansas Code Annotated section 16-89-111(e)(1)(1987). The section provides: "A conviction cannot be had in any case of felony upon the testimony of an accomplice unless corroborated by other evidence tending to connect the defendant with the commission of the offense." Corroborating evidence need not be so substantial in and of itself to sustain a conviction. Flowers v. State, 342 Ark. 45, 51, 25 S.W.3d 422, 426 (2000).

In reviewing the denial of a motion for a directed verdict, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, considering only the evidence that supports the verdict, and affirm if there is substantial evidence to support the verdict. Rose v. State, 72 Ark. App. 175, 35 S.W.3d 365 (2000). Evidence, whether direct or circumstantial, is substantial if it is of sufficient force that it would compel a conclusion one way or the other without recourse to speculation and conjecture. Id. The test for determining the sufficiency of corroborating evidence is whether, if the testimony of the accomplice were totally eliminated from the case, the other evidence independently establishes the crime and tends to connect the accused with its commission. Id. We defer questions of credibility and weight to be given the testimony to the superior position of the trial court. Kirby v. State, 52 Ark. App. 161, 915 S.W.2d 736 (1996).

The testimony at trial meets these standards. Officer Mark Henry of the Texarkana, Texas Police Department testified that he was working in an undercover capacity on the drug task force on October 12, 1999. On that day, he asked Scott Cayman to arrange for the purchase of approximately two ounces of methamphetamine. He knew Mr. Cayman by making a transaction with him a few weeks earlier during which Mr. Cayman delivered to Officer Henry approximately one-eighth ounce of methamphetamine. He further testified that he had experience with street purchases of the drug in the geographic area and that user amounts were generally less than asixteenth of an ounce. For that reason, the purchase of two ounces would be considered a substantial quantity.

Mr. Cayman advised Officer Henry that he had arranged to buy the methamphetamine from Clara Stockton and that the plan was that "the cook" would bring the methamphetamine to her apartment and that she and the cook would then deliver it to Cayman's house. Officer Les Moody of the Texarkana, Arkansas Police Department and Officer David Slater of the Miller County Sheriff's Department kept Clara Stockton's apartment under surveillance after they learned the details of the planned drug transaction.

These two officers saw the appellant pull up to Stockton's apartment in his pickup truck, get out of the truck, and remove a plastic bag from the truck's toolbox. The bag contained ether, which is commonly used to manufacture methamphetamine. The appellant took the bag into Stockton's apartment, remained there for a short time, and then walked with her back to his truck. The two left the apartment complex and stopped at a convenience store where the police apprehended them and recovered the methamphetamine from underneath the passenger's seat of the truck. The purity of the drug indicated that it was recently manufactured.

This evidence independently establishes the crime and tends to connect the accused with its commission. Therefore, we find no error and affirm.

Jennings and Crabtree, JJ., agree.