Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 470 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-23-550
Opinion Delivered October 2, 2024 EDWARD CHAMBERS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CLEBURNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 12CR-22-29] V. HONORABLE TIM WEAVER, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS AFFIRMED APPELLEE
WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge
Edward Chambers appeals the sentencing order of the Cleburne County Circuit
Court convicting him of two counts of delivery of methamphetamine and one count of
maintaining a drug premises and sentencing him as a habitual offender to a total of ninety
years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Chambers challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his conviction for maintaining a drug premises and contends that the circuit court
abused its discretion in denying his request for a jury instruction on the defense of
entrapment. We affirm.
In August 2020, the Cleburne County Sheriff’s Office received a tip that Chambers
and Chuck Geisler were distributing “large amounts of methamphetamine” from
Chambers’s house at 111 Bobby Road in Higden. The sheriff’s office subsequently engaged a confidential informant, Liz Pike, to purchase methamphetamine from either Chambers or
Geisler. Pike was chosen as the informant because she knew both Chambers and Geisler.
Pike contacted Chambers and set up a time and place to buy methamphetamine. The
buy took place at Chambers’s residence on September 18, 2020. Chambers, Pike, and
another woman went into Chambers’s bedroom, where they chatted for fifteen or twenty
minutes while Chambers packaged and sold Pike the drugs for cash. In the first buy,
Chambers sold Pike 13.9345 grams of methamphetamine.
Brandon Long, a detective at the sheriff’s office, contacted Pike a month later, on
October 15, and asked her to contact Chambers to attempt another purchase. Pike contacted
Chambers and scheduled another meeting at his house that day. During this meeting, Pike
helped Chambers move a piece of furniture from his car into the house. Pike testified that
Chambers was the only person living in the house as far as she knew. During this exchange,
Pike purchased 12.7219 grams of methamphetamine from Chambers.
During both buys, Pike wore a video-recording device; the resulting video was played
for the jury. Because most of the audio recordings were inaudible, they were not transcribed
in the record. However, the videos show Chambers selling and Pike purchasing the
methamphetamine on both dates. During the first buy, the parties discuss the purchase;
Chambers then opens a drawer in a nightstand by the bed, takes methamphetamine from
the drawer, puts it in a bag, and gives it to Pike. In the second video, both Chambers and
Pike smoke methamphetamine in addition to conducting the buy. In both buys, Pike hands
Chambers cash for the drugs.
2 During trial, Detective Long denied asking Pike to flirt with, or make sexual advances
toward, either Chambers or Geisler in order to “get them to sell [Pike] meth.” The detective
testified that Pike was chosen as the informant for the buys because she was familiar with the
area, knew both individuals, and had said she would be able to make the buys. Pike also
denied offering Chambers sex in exchange for methamphetamine. She testified that
Detective Long did not direct her to flirt with Chambers to persuade him to sell her drugs
and said that the purchase was strictly a business transaction or monetary exchange of
methamphetamine for cash.
Chambers moved for a directed verdict on the maintaining-a-drug-premises count,
arguing that the State failed to prove that he knowingly maintained the dwelling, and the
court denied the motion. Chambers also requested a jury instruction on an entrapment
defense. He contended that Pike induced him to deliver methamphetamine to her by
promising him sexual favors. The court denied Chambers’s request for the instruction,
finding “absolutely nothing” in the videos to indicate that Chambers was persuaded to
commit the offenses, stating that the evidence “looks like” he willingly sold the
methamphetamine. The court then said there must be “some evidence” to support a jury
instruction, and in this case, “there’s not any.”
The jury found Chambers guilty of two counts of delivery of methamphetamine and
one count of maintaining a drug premises and recommended a total sentence of ninety years’
imprisonment and a fine of $10,000. The circuit court accepted the jury’s recommendation
and entered a sentencing order on May 3, 2023. This appeal followed.
3 We first address Chambers’s argument that the circuit court erred in denying his
motion for directed verdict on the conviction for maintaining a drug premises. Pursuant to
Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-402(a)(2) (Repl. 2016), it is unlawful for any person
“[k]nowingly to keep or maintain any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling, building, or other
structure or place or premise[s] that is resorted to by a person for the purpose of using or
obtaining a controlled substance in violation of this chapter or that is used for keeping a
controlled substance in violation of this chapter.” Chambers contends that the evidence was
insufficient to prove that he lived at 111 Bobby Road in Higden where the drug sales took
place because the house was owned by another individual, and no lease, mail, or other
document listing his name was introduced.
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must assess the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports
the verdict. Collins v. State, 2021 Ark. 35, at 4, 617 S.W.3d 701, 704. We affirm a conviction
if substantial evidence exists to support it. Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323, at 4, 588 S.W.3d 1,
4. Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character that it will, with
reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id.,
588 S.W.3d at 4. Witness credibility is an issue for the fact-finder, which may believe all or
part of any witness’s testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and
inconsistent evidence. McKisick v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 426, at 4, 653 S.W.3d 839, 843.
First, neither ownership of the dwelling nor a current lease is an element of the crime
of maintaining a drug premises. See Cantrell v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 201, at 6. Second, Pike
4 twice purchased drugs from Chambers at the house on Bobby Road and testified that
Chambers lived there alone. In the video of the transactions, Chambers got the drugs from
the bedside table near the bed on which he sat for both sales. Finally, Pike testified that she
helped him move an ottoman from his car into the house during the second buy. We hold
that this was sufficient to establish that Chambers lived at the residence and knew drugs
were being distributed from the premises. Cantrell, 2024 Ark. App. 201, at 6 (affirming a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction for maintaining a drug
premises where the confidential informant testified that the appellant lived at the residence
where three controlled buys took place, the informant had been to the house four or five
times to use or buy drugs, and the appellant was there each time). Accordingly, substantial
evidence supports Chambers’s conviction for maintaining a drug premises.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
Cite as 2024 Ark. App. 470 ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS DIVISION II No. CR-23-550
Opinion Delivered October 2, 2024 EDWARD CHAMBERS APPELLANT APPEAL FROM THE CLEBURNE COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT [NO. 12CR-22-29] V. HONORABLE TIM WEAVER, JUDGE STATE OF ARKANSAS AFFIRMED APPELLEE
WENDY SCHOLTENS WOOD, Judge
Edward Chambers appeals the sentencing order of the Cleburne County Circuit
Court convicting him of two counts of delivery of methamphetamine and one count of
maintaining a drug premises and sentencing him as a habitual offender to a total of ninety
years’ imprisonment. On appeal, Chambers challenges the sufficiency of the evidence to
support his conviction for maintaining a drug premises and contends that the circuit court
abused its discretion in denying his request for a jury instruction on the defense of
entrapment. We affirm.
In August 2020, the Cleburne County Sheriff’s Office received a tip that Chambers
and Chuck Geisler were distributing “large amounts of methamphetamine” from
Chambers’s house at 111 Bobby Road in Higden. The sheriff’s office subsequently engaged a confidential informant, Liz Pike, to purchase methamphetamine from either Chambers or
Geisler. Pike was chosen as the informant because she knew both Chambers and Geisler.
Pike contacted Chambers and set up a time and place to buy methamphetamine. The
buy took place at Chambers’s residence on September 18, 2020. Chambers, Pike, and
another woman went into Chambers’s bedroom, where they chatted for fifteen or twenty
minutes while Chambers packaged and sold Pike the drugs for cash. In the first buy,
Chambers sold Pike 13.9345 grams of methamphetamine.
Brandon Long, a detective at the sheriff’s office, contacted Pike a month later, on
October 15, and asked her to contact Chambers to attempt another purchase. Pike contacted
Chambers and scheduled another meeting at his house that day. During this meeting, Pike
helped Chambers move a piece of furniture from his car into the house. Pike testified that
Chambers was the only person living in the house as far as she knew. During this exchange,
Pike purchased 12.7219 grams of methamphetamine from Chambers.
During both buys, Pike wore a video-recording device; the resulting video was played
for the jury. Because most of the audio recordings were inaudible, they were not transcribed
in the record. However, the videos show Chambers selling and Pike purchasing the
methamphetamine on both dates. During the first buy, the parties discuss the purchase;
Chambers then opens a drawer in a nightstand by the bed, takes methamphetamine from
the drawer, puts it in a bag, and gives it to Pike. In the second video, both Chambers and
Pike smoke methamphetamine in addition to conducting the buy. In both buys, Pike hands
Chambers cash for the drugs.
2 During trial, Detective Long denied asking Pike to flirt with, or make sexual advances
toward, either Chambers or Geisler in order to “get them to sell [Pike] meth.” The detective
testified that Pike was chosen as the informant for the buys because she was familiar with the
area, knew both individuals, and had said she would be able to make the buys. Pike also
denied offering Chambers sex in exchange for methamphetamine. She testified that
Detective Long did not direct her to flirt with Chambers to persuade him to sell her drugs
and said that the purchase was strictly a business transaction or monetary exchange of
methamphetamine for cash.
Chambers moved for a directed verdict on the maintaining-a-drug-premises count,
arguing that the State failed to prove that he knowingly maintained the dwelling, and the
court denied the motion. Chambers also requested a jury instruction on an entrapment
defense. He contended that Pike induced him to deliver methamphetamine to her by
promising him sexual favors. The court denied Chambers’s request for the instruction,
finding “absolutely nothing” in the videos to indicate that Chambers was persuaded to
commit the offenses, stating that the evidence “looks like” he willingly sold the
methamphetamine. The court then said there must be “some evidence” to support a jury
instruction, and in this case, “there’s not any.”
The jury found Chambers guilty of two counts of delivery of methamphetamine and
one count of maintaining a drug premises and recommended a total sentence of ninety years’
imprisonment and a fine of $10,000. The circuit court accepted the jury’s recommendation
and entered a sentencing order on May 3, 2023. This appeal followed.
3 We first address Chambers’s argument that the circuit court erred in denying his
motion for directed verdict on the conviction for maintaining a drug premises. Pursuant to
Arkansas Code Annotated section 5-64-402(a)(2) (Repl. 2016), it is unlawful for any person
“[k]nowingly to keep or maintain any store, shop, warehouse, dwelling, building, or other
structure or place or premise[s] that is resorted to by a person for the purpose of using or
obtaining a controlled substance in violation of this chapter or that is used for keeping a
controlled substance in violation of this chapter.” Chambers contends that the evidence was
insufficient to prove that he lived at 111 Bobby Road in Higden where the drug sales took
place because the house was owned by another individual, and no lease, mail, or other
document listing his name was introduced.
When reviewing a challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence, we must assess the
evidence in the light most favorable to the State and consider only the evidence that supports
the verdict. Collins v. State, 2021 Ark. 35, at 4, 617 S.W.3d 701, 704. We affirm a conviction
if substantial evidence exists to support it. Price v. State, 2019 Ark. 323, at 4, 588 S.W.3d 1,
4. Substantial evidence is evidence of sufficient force and character that it will, with
reasonable certainty, compel a conclusion without resorting to speculation or conjecture. Id.,
588 S.W.3d at 4. Witness credibility is an issue for the fact-finder, which may believe all or
part of any witness’s testimony and may resolve questions of conflicting testimony and
inconsistent evidence. McKisick v. State, 2022 Ark. App. 426, at 4, 653 S.W.3d 839, 843.
First, neither ownership of the dwelling nor a current lease is an element of the crime
of maintaining a drug premises. See Cantrell v. State, 2024 Ark. App. 201, at 6. Second, Pike
4 twice purchased drugs from Chambers at the house on Bobby Road and testified that
Chambers lived there alone. In the video of the transactions, Chambers got the drugs from
the bedside table near the bed on which he sat for both sales. Finally, Pike testified that she
helped him move an ottoman from his car into the house during the second buy. We hold
that this was sufficient to establish that Chambers lived at the residence and knew drugs
were being distributed from the premises. Cantrell, 2024 Ark. App. 201, at 6 (affirming a
challenge to the sufficiency of the evidence supporting a conviction for maintaining a drug
premises where the confidential informant testified that the appellant lived at the residence
where three controlled buys took place, the informant had been to the house four or five
times to use or buy drugs, and the appellant was there each time). Accordingly, substantial
evidence supports Chambers’s conviction for maintaining a drug premises.
Chambers also argues that the circuit court abused its discretion by refusing to give a
jury instruction on the defense of entrapment. Entrapment is an affirmative defense that
“occurs when a law enforcement officer or any person acting in cooperation with a law
enforcement officer induces the commission of an offense by using persuasion or other
means likely to cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense.” Ark. Code Ann.
§ 5-2-209(b)(1) (Repl. 2013). “Conduct merely affording a person an opportunity to commit
an offense does not constitute entrapment.” Ark. Code Ann. § 5-2-209(b)(2). A defendant
bears the burden of proving entrapment by a preponderance of the evidence. Smoak v. State,
2011 Ark. 529, 385 S.W.3d 257.
5 Although most of the audio on the video recordings is inaudible, we agree with the
circuit court that there is nothing in the video demonstrating sexual contact or overt
flirtation between Pike and Chambers. Moreover, both Detective Long and Pike denied that
Long directed Pike to flirt with Chambers or to offer Chambers sex in exchange for
methamphetamine. Pike said that the purchase was strictly a business transaction or
monetary exchange of methamphetamine for cash.
The circuit court’s decision to give or reject an instruction will not be reversed unless
the court abused its discretion. Hundley v. State, 2020 Ark. 89, at 3, 594 S.W.3d 60, 62.
When there is no evidence to support the giving of an instruction, it is not erroneous to
refuse it. Blaney v. State, 280 Ark. 253, 257, 657 S.W.2d 531, 534 (1983). Chambers failed
to present any evidence that Pike induced him to sell methamphetamine to her by conduct
that was likely to cause a normally law-abiding person to commit the offense. Merely
affording one the means and opportunity to do that which he is otherwise ready, willing,
and able to do does not constitute entrapment. Lowe v. State, 2012 Ark. 185, at 8, 423 S.W.3d
6, 13. Thus, we hold that the circuit court did not abuse its discretion by refusing to instruct
the jury on entrapment.
Affirmed.
BARRETT and HIXSON, JJ., agree.
The Law Office of Geoffrey D. Kearney, PLLC, by: Geoffrey D. Kearney, for appellant.
Tim Griffin, Att’y Gen., by: Brooke Jackson Gasaway, Ass’t Att’y Gen., for appellee.