Benton v. State, 2012 Ark. App. 71

Benton was convicted by a jury of second-degree forgery and theft by receiving, and sentenced as a habitual offender to thirty years on each count, consecutive.
The State charged Benton with forging a $150 check on Elear May Racy’s account and with theft by receiving a gold ring valued $500–$2,500 that Benton allegedly possessed.
Racy testified that her jewelry was stolen during a burglary and that a forged $150 check was written from her account, bearing an unfamiliar endorsement.
Marsha Stigger, a felon on parole and heroin/cocaine user, testified that Benton gave her the check to cash, and Benton allegedly benefited from the check.
Police recovered the ring during Benton’s arrest, and Sandine testified Benton made a prior incriminating remark about finding something on the ground.
The court affirmed both convictions, addressing sufficiency of the evidence and corroboration for the forgery conviction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Is corroboration sufficient for accomplice testimony on forgery?	Benton argues lack of corroboration independently connecting him to the forgery.	State asserts circumstantial and accomplice testimony, together with other evidence, suffices.	Yes; substantial corroboration exists linking Benton to the forgery beyond Stigger’s testimony.
Is there substantial evidence to convict Benton of theft by receiving?	Benton contends no proof he knew the ring was stolen.	State relies on unexplained possession of recently stolen property and corroborating circumstances.	Yes; substantial evidence supports theft by receiving.

McGehee v. State, 338 Ark. 152 (1999) (test for corroboration—accomplice testimony must be corroborated)
Ross v. State, 346 Ark. 225 (2001) (circumstantial evidence can support a conviction; must exclude other reasonable hypotheses)
Page v. State, 2009 Ark. 112 (2009) (substantial evidence standard for sufficiency on appeal)
Booker v. State, 335 Ark. 316 (1998) (no distinction between circumstantial and direct evidence on sufficiency)
Core v. State, 265 Ark. 409 (1979) (unexplained possession presumption; corroboration must overcome presumption)
Barrett v. State, 354 Ark. 187 (2003) (implausible explanations can constitute substantial evidence of guilt)
Stewart v. State, 338 Ark. 608 (1999) (implausible explanations as evidence of guilt)
Andrews v. State, 344 Ark. 606 (2001) (corroboration need not be independently substantial but must be substantial)
Green v. State, 365 Ark. 478 (2006) (corroboration must be substantial; suspicion is insufficient)
Martin v. State, 346 Ark. 198 (2001) (test for corroboration when accomplice testimony is involved)
Passley v. State, 323 Ark. 301 (1996) (presence, opportunity, association are relevant to linking accomplice to crime)