Holt v. State

Although I believe that appellant’s conviction for manufacturing a controlled substance is not supported by substantial evidence, I believe the other counts on which the appellant was convicted can be affirmed.

Appellant was charged with possession of drug paraphernalia with the intent to manufacture. It is unlawful for a person to use, or possess with the intent to use, drug paraphernalia to manufacture methamphetamine. Ark.Code Ann. § 5-64-403(b)(5)(A) (Supp.2007). Under our law, it is clear that the State need not prove that the accused physically possessed the contraband in order to…