ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS

NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION 

CHRISTOPHER W. ELMORE

APPELLANT

V.

STATE OF ARKANSAS

APPELLEE

CACR 03-91

                                 October 29, 2003

APPEAL FROM THE SEBASTIAN COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT

[NO. CR-01-78]

HONORABLE JAMES ROBERT

MARSCHEWSKI, JUDGE

AFFIRMED

Terry Crabtree, Judge

           In a bench trial, Christopher W. Elmore was found guilty of manufacturing a controlled substance (methamphetamine) for which he was sentenced to twelve years in prison. The only argument presented on appeal is that the evidence is not sufficient to sustain the guilty verdict. We affirm.

           Late in the afternoon of January 8, 2001, John Lundquist went to the Malco Theater in Fort Smith. The building was undergoing renovation, and as the treasurer of the entity that owned the building, Lundquist had gone there that afternoon to pay bills. He unlocked the front doors but found that he could not open them because they had been wired shut from the inside. He then went around back and found that the chain had been broken off that door. He left to call the police.

           Tim Randolph of the Fort Smith Police Department responded to the call of a possible burglary at the theater. He tried to enter the back door, but it had been fastened shut on the inside by a rag. He managed to get the door open, and when he went inside he saw light and heard a radio coming from the balcony. On the balcony, he saw appellant and three other individuals. Moments later, Lundquist returned to the building, and although appellant claimed that he was there to work, it was ascertained that appellant and the others had no right to be there. Randolph climbed up to the balcony and observed items such as propane tanks, glassware, and bottles containing liquids that had been spread out as if someone had been working with them. He said that he could smell that there had been some heat applied. Based on experience, he believed that he had discovered a methamphetamine lab, so he called for a narcotics unit as per procedure.

           Officers Truman Phillips and Chris Harris of the narcotics unit arrived to process the scene. They said that they found an HCL generator, tubing, muriatic acid, iodine, red phosphorus, methamphetamine oil, and glassware. In addition, they seized a piece of ½ inch tubing with a filter attached that contained a reddish-brown residue; a white cloth package that contained a brownish residue; a reddish brown crystal substance; a dark red liquid; a dark red powdery substance; a wet coffee filter; more dark red powdery substance; a tri-layer liquid; a four-layer liquid; and a dark red liquid. Both officers testified that what they observed was consistent with a methamphetamine lab. They both also detected an odor that they associated with the manufacture of methamphetamine.

           Nick Dawson, a chemist from the crime lab, testified that residue from the tube with a filter attached tested positive for methamphetamine, as did one of the samples of a dark red liquid. Three of the items submitted for testing contained iodine, while others contained phosphorus. The tri-layer liquid contained the organic solvent, ethyl ether. In Dawson’s opinion, the items constituted the remnants of a methamphetamine lab. He testified that it was common to find methamphetamine residue off items that had been used in meth labs, and that iodine and phosphorus were used in the process of making methamphetamine. He also said that the organic solvent was used to dissolve the ephedrine or pseudoephedrine tablets or that it could be used for the “powdering out” stage at the end of the process. None of the items he tested proved to be methamphetamine oil.

           Officer Harris spoke with appellant briefly at the scene as appellant was sitting in a patrol car. At that time, appellant told Harris that “it’s all my stuff up there,” and that the others were not involved. Harris later spoke with appellant at length. Harris testified that appellant reiterated that it was his methamphetamine lab and that the others did not have anything to do with it. Appellant said that he was there that day to “gas off” the methamphetamine oil that he had made previously and which he had hidden at the theater. He told Harris that he had tried to kick over the jug that contained methamphetamine oil when Officer Randolph arrived. Appellant also said that he buys red phosphorus by the pound and that he could make two pounds of methamphetamine out of that quantity of red phosphorus. Appellant was familiar with both the Nazi method and red phosphorus method of making methamphetamine and said that he had been taught how to cook methamphetamine by his father. Appellant stated that he derived his livelihood from making methamphetamine, that “it was his life,” and that he could earn $10,000 from the sale of a pound of methamphetamine which he would split with his father.

           Appellant contends that the evidence is insufficient to support his conviction because the evidence did not show that he had produced, or was producing, methamphetamine at the time the police came into contact with him. He emphasizes the chemist’s testimony that the items and materials discovered were the remnants of a meth lab, and he points to the fact that no meth oil was found.

           In deciding this case, we are guided by our familiar standard of review. We affirm a conviction if substantial evidence exists to support it. Stone v. State, 348 Ark. 661, 74 S.W.3d 591 (2002). Substantial evidence is that which is of sufficient force and character that it will, with reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion one way or the other without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Haynes v. State, 346 Ark. 388, 58 S.W.3d 336 (2001). In reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in a light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports the verdict. Stone v. State, supra.

           “Manufacture” means the production, preparation, propagation, compounding, conversion, or processing of a controlled substance, either directly or indirectly by extraction from substances of natural origin, or independently by means of chemical synthesis, or by a combination of extraction and chemical synthesis. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-101(m) (Repl. 1997).