This' case arises from the criminal conviction of appellant, Adam Tate, for manufacturing a controlled substance, possession of a controlled substance with intent to deliver, possession of drug paraphernalia with intent to manufacture, and possession of drug paraphernalia. Appellant received a twelve-year prison term. On appeal, appellant argues that there was insufficient evidence to support his convictions and that the trial court erred in denying his motion to suppress. We reverse and dismiss based on appellant’s first assignment of error.
Appellant and his co-defendants, Kerri Harris and Stacy Jester, were arrested after a nighttime search warrant had been executed at the home of Kerri Harris. At the time of the search, 3 a.m., appellant was awake in a bedroom with Stacy Jester. Kerri Harris was in the front yard at that time. The search of the bedroom where appellant was found yielded a propane torch, another torch, a torch head, a propane tank, a Pyrex glass, coffee filters with methamphetamine residue, a blister pack of pseu-doephedrine, a bag with red phosphorus, an electric burner, and “meth oil.” In addition, the same bedroom contained a box of new syringes, four spoons, a glass pipe, and four corners of baggies with powder methamphetamine residue. There were also several plastic baggies, $384 in small bills, and some digital scales. Most of these items were around or on the dresser, but others were scattered in the bedroom. The room also had a chemical odor consistent with the smell of meth labs.
Prior to the trial, appellant moved to suppress the contraband seized in the search on the basis that there was a lack of probable cause for the issuance of a nighttime search warrant. The trial court denied the motion. However, at the outset of the case, the trial court determined that Kerri Harris and Stacy Jester were accomplices as a matter of law.
Harris testified that she had seen methamphetamine being manufactured in her residence and that she received methamphetamine from appellant in exchange for rent. She also stated that all of the items found in the bedroom belonged to appellant and Jester.
Jester testified that none of the items found in the bedroom were hers and that the items belonged to appellant. She stated that appellant had delivered methamphetamine to her and Harris that night.
Both women testified that Harris leased the duplex residential unit. According to their testimony, appellant and Jester were romantically involved and had been living together in that duplex for two months prior to the search.
Appellant moved for a directed verdict at the end of the State’s evidence and based his motion on a lack of corroboration of accomplice testimony linking him to the residence and the contraband seized. He renewed the motion at the end of all the evidence. The trial court denied both motions.
Substantial Evidence
A motion for a directed verdict is a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence. Peterson v. State, 83 Ark. App. 226, 100 S.W.3d 66 (2003). The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence is whether the verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Id. Substantial evidence is evidence forceful enough to compel a conclusion one way or the other beyond suspicion or conjecture. Id. When the defendant challenges the sufficiency of the evidence convicting him, the evidence is viewed in the light most favorable to the State. Id. The jury is the sole judge of the credibility of the witnesses and the weight to be given their testimony. Burns v. State, 323 Ark. 206, 913 S.W.2d 789 (1996).
It is well established that testimony of accomplices must be corroborated, but evidence corroborating accomplice testimony need not be sufficient standing alone to sustain the conviction. Miles v. State, 76 Ark. App. 255, 64 S.W.3d 759 (2001). However, it must tend to connect the defendant to a substantial degree with the commission of the crime independent of the accomplice’s testimony. Id.; Ark. Code Ann. § 16-89-111(e)(1). The corroborating evidence may be circumstantial so long as it is substantial. Id. Evidence merely raising a suspicion of guilt is insufficient. Id. Proof that merely places the defendant near the scene of a crime is not sufficient to corroborate the accomplice’s testimony. Id. In the Miles case, we specifically held evidence — that the defendant was walking out of a bedroom used as a meth lab — to be insufficient corroboration of the accomplice’s testimony to support the conviction because there was no evidence other than the accomplice’s testimony to show that the defendant exercised care, control, or management over the items in the accomplice’s home. Id.
We based our reasoning on the law of constructive possession. To establish constructive possession, the State must prove that (1) the accused exercised care, control, and management over the contraband, and that (2) the accused knew that the matter possessed was in fact contraband. Id.
In the present case, we first must determine whether Harris and Jester are, in fact, accomplices with appellant. Whether or not the trial court actually ruled Harris and Jester to be accomplices with appellant, Arkansas law has long recognized that one who is jointly indicted with others, if evidence shows a connection with the commission of the crime, even though such evidence be meager and unsatisfactory, is to be regarded an accomplice for corroboration purposes. Jackson v. State, 193 Ark. 776, 102 S.W.2d 546 (1937). Appellant, Harris, and Jester were indicted as co-defendants. Thus, they are accomplices, and Harris’s and Jester’s testimony requires corroboration.
Next we must determine whether evidence independent from the accomplices’ testimony tends to support appellant’s convictions. Our decision in Miles v. State, supra, is illustrative. In that case, we held that there was an insufficient nexus between the contraband found in a bedroom and the accused who was seen walking out of that bedroom. In our case, the officers found appellant inside the bedroom containing the contraband. Given that mere joint occupancy does not by itself establish constructive possession — which is needed to connect appellant with the contraband — -the State would have had to prove that appellant exercised care, control, and management over the contraband in question and that appellant knew that the matter possessed was contraband. While the State makes a strong argument that appellant should have known that the items found in that bedroom, in their entirety, constituted a meth lab, methamphetamine, and various paraphernalia used to consume and distribute methamphetamine, the record is silent on the State’s proof that appellant exercised care, control, and management over those items. The test for determining the sufficiency of the corroborating evidence is whether, if the accomplice testimony were totally eliminated from the case, the other evidence independently establishes the crime and tends to connect the accused with its commission. See Martin v. State, 346 Ark. 198, 575 S.W.3d 136 (2001); see also Jones v. State, 349 Ark. 331, 78 S.W.3d 104 (2002).
Appellant was found in a bedroom within a residence that was not his. As the State points out, the contraband was “scattered” over the entire room — a room that did not belong to appellant. He was in that room together with Jester, a woman who must be deemed an accomplice with appellant and Harris. The State points to no facts that would indicate appellant’s care, control, and management of the room or the contraband. There was no proof independent of the accomplice testimony that established appellant’s residence at Harris’s duplex. Police did not find any of appellant’s personal effects, such as mail or clothing, at the Harris residence. They did not take fingerprints to establish that appellant exercised care, custody, or control over any of the contraband. The State merely points out that appellant was present. Thus, the only evidence connecting appellant with the contraband was the accomplices’ testimony.
Because there is a lack of independent evidence connecting appellant with the crime, we hold that under our case law, this is insufficient evidence to establish constructive possession. With constructive possession not proved, the State failed to establish a sufficient connection with the contraband in question that would tend to corroborate the accomplices’ testimony. We reverse and dismiss on this point. In light of our disposition of appellant’s first point of error, we do not need to reach his remaining point.
Reversed and dismissed.
Gladwin, Neal, and Baker, JJ., agree. Stroud, C.J., and Crabtree, J., dissent.