Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 99
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION II
No. CR-15-612
Opinion Delivered February 17, 2016
TRAVIS KIMBLE
APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CONWAY
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
V. [NO. CR-14-94]
STATE OF ARKANSAS HONORABLE JERRY DON RAMEY,
APPELLEE JUDGE
AFFIRMED
M. MICHAEL KINARD, Judge
Travis Kimble appeals his conviction for possession of a firearm by a felon. For his
sole point on appeal, appellant argues that the evidence was insufficient to prove that he
actually possessed the firearm. We affirm.
Testimony at the jury trial established that the Morrilton police were called to the
home of Jonnie Simpson, appellant’s wife, on the night of April 15, 2014. Simpson testified
that there had been an altercation, and she had told appellant to leave. Officer Aaron Mariott
arrived at the home thereafter, and Simpson told him that appellant had taken her gun.
Simpson testified that she did not see appellant with her gun, but after he left, she had looked
for the gun where she kept it in her bedroom and it was not there. Simpson showed Mariott
an empty gun case, which listed the make and model of the firearm along with the serial
number. A description of appellant was put out for police to look for him.
Officer Ken Eubanks of the Plumerville Police Department testified that he was
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 99
driving in Morrilton on the morning of April 16, 2014, when he recognized the man the
Morrilton Police Department had been looking for walking down a street. Eubanks alerted
the Morrilton Police Department and attempted to keep visual contact with appellant.
When he approached appellant in his patrol car, appellant quickly turned and walked away.
Eubanks then followed appellant and saw him drop a black object from his right hand. At
this point, Eubanks stopped appellant. When a Morrilton officer arrived, Eubanks walked
to the location where he saw appellant drop the black object and found a handgun. He said
that he found no other black objects there. A Morrilton officer verified by serial number that
it was Simpson’s gun.
In a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we view the evidence in the light
most favorable to the State, considering only the evidence that supports the verdict. White
v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 587, 446 S.W.3d 193. The test for determining the sufficiency of
the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, either direct or
circumstantial. Id. Evidence is substantial if it is of sufficient force and character to compel
reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture. Id.
Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-73-103 (Supp. 2015) provides that no person
who has been convicted of a felony shall possess or own any firearm. Appellant argues that
the State was required to prove that he actually possessed the firearm by having direct
physical control over it. He argues that none of the officers saw him physically possessing
the gun and that the fact that the gun was found in his vicinity was not sufficient proof.
Appellant’s argument is without merit. This court has held that the State is not
2
Cite as 2016 Ark. App. 99
required to prove actual possession but may instead prove that the accused was in
constructive possession of a firearm. Johnson v. State, 2014 Ark. App. 567, 444 S.W.3d 880.
For constructive possession, the State must establish that the defendant exercised care,
control, and management over the contraband. Id. Constructive possession may be implied
where the contraband is found in a place immediately and exclusively accessible to the
accused and subject to his control. Id.
In Johnson, the defendant was being chased by police on foot when an officer observed
him pull an object out of the right pocket of his pants and toss it to the ground. The officer
could not identify the object because it was dark, but Johnson then surrendered and another
officer found a gun in the immediate vicinity of his arrest. Johnson argued on appeal that the
evidence was insufficient because the gun was not found in his actual possession, but we held
that there was sufficient evidence from which the fact-finder could infer constructive
possession of the firearm.
Here, Officer Eubanks observed appellant drop a black object, and the gun missing
from Simpson’s home was soon thereafter discovered in that location. We hold that there
is substantial evidence that appellant possessed the gun.
Affirmed.
WHITEAKER and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
Howard M. Holthoff, for appellant.
Leslie Rutledge, Att’y Gen., by: Evelyn D. Gomez, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.
3