ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION 

ERSKINE DOUGLAS FLAMER

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR02-1309

                                 October 29, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE CHICOT COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-2001-153-7]

HON. JERRY E. MAZZANTI,

 JUDGE

AFFIRMED

John Mauzy Pittman, Judge

           Erskine Douglas Flamer appeals from his convictions of possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm, for which he was sentenced to concurrent ten-year terms in the Arkansas Department of Correction. He contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress physical evidence found in his home. We affirm.

           Appellant allowed police officers into his home to inspect a television that he had recently purchased. The officers had recently arrested two men who admitted that they had stolen a television and sold it to appellant. While inside appellant’s house, one of the officers noticed a small quantity of marijuana in plain view on a counter. The officers removed the television and placed it in their police car, and immediately afterward reentered the house and performed a warrantless search. The search revealed that appellant had additional marijuana, some cocaine, electric scales, and a firearm in his home. Appellant was arrested and charged with possession of marijuana with intent to deliver and simultaneous possession of drugs and a firearm. Prior to trial, appellant moved to suppress the drugs, paraphernalia, and weapon obtained during the search of his home. The State argued that the search was consensual and offered proof to show appellant had consented. The trial court denied the motion. At trial, the fruits of the search were introduced into evidence. Appellant took the stand and testified, frankly admitting on direct examination that the marijuana belonged to him and that the weapon was in his possession, but stating that the marijuana was for his own use and that he had not intended delivery. Appellant was convicted of the two offenses.

           For reversal, appellant contends that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress the contraband found during the warrantless search. We do not address this issue because appellant waived it by admitting possession of these items at trial. A party who has objected to evidence of a fact waives his objection if he himself produces evidence of the same fact from his own witness. Hart v. State, 77 Ark. App. 206, 72 S.W.3d 540 (2002). We have held, under similar circumstances, that a defendant’s testimony at trial admitting possession of contraband was a voluntary act and not the fruit of a prior illegal search. Pool v. State, 29 Ark. App. 234, 780 S.W.2d 350 (1989); see also Towe v. State, 304 Ark. 239, 801 S.W.2d 42 (1990). Appellant’s testimony is therefore not subject to exclusion and, in light of his admission that he possessed the very contraband he sought to suppress, any error in refusing to suppress the evidence obtained during the search was harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. Hart v. State, supra; see also Isbell v. State, 326 Ark. 17, 22, 931 S.W.2d 74, 77 (1996); Coon v. State, 76 Ark. App. 250, 65 S.W.3d 889 (2001).

           Affirmed.

           Hart and Griffen, JJ., agree.