Harjo v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 337

On Jan. 5, 2016, law-enforcement executed a search warrant at Lance Harjo’s residence; Harjo was on the property and another resident, Xabrina Cunningham, was asleep in the master bedroom.
Officers found in the master bedroom (in plain view and in a desk): methamphetamine (over 300 g aggregate), packaged marijuana, pills (hydrocodone/oxycodone), digital scales, firearms and ammunition, and a multiplex monitor connected to exterior security cameras.
A safe in an adjacent shop (opened after a second warrant) contained cash, a firearm, marijuana, and methamphetamine in small bags.
Forensic testing confirmed methamphetamine, marijuana, THC, and controlled pills; testing ceased after establishing >200 g methamphetamine to meet trafficking presumption.
Harjo told officers that anything found in the search belonged to him; bills and men’s clothing in the bedroom corroborated his residence there.
Harjo was convicted of trafficking in methamphetamine and related offenses and appealed, challenging (1) sufficiency of evidence of constructive possession and (2) whether security cameras qualified as “communication devices” used to facilitate drug offenses under Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-404.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (State)	Defendant's Argument (Harjo)	Held
Sufficiency of evidence of constructive possession of drugs/firearms	Evidence (Harjo lived there, bills/clothing in bedroom, contraband in plain view, Harjo present, Harjo’s admission) shows control, management, and knowledge	Harjo argued contraband was not shown to be his; insufficient to prove constructive possession	Affirmed — substantial evidence supports constructive possession (jury may infer control from residence, proximity, plain view, and admission)
Whether security cameras are “communication devices” used to facilitate drug offenses under § 5-64-404	Cameras transmitted pictures to monitor in the bedroom and thus are instruments used in transmission of a picture and fall within statutory definition	Harjo argued cameras are not the kind of "communication device" covered and were merely for home security (not shown to facilitate crimes)	Affirmed — cameras qualify as "communication devices" under the statute’s broad definition; Harjo did not preserve a distinct factual challenge that cameras were used to facilitate crimes by directed-verdict scope, so conviction stands

Alexander v. State, 78 Ark. App. 56 (2002) (standard for reviewing sufficiency of evidence)
Franklin v. State, 60 Ark. App. 198 (1998) (constructive possession principles and joint control)
Nichols v. State, 306 Ark. 417 (1991) (factors for inferring control: proximity, plain view, ownership)
Williams v. State, 338 Ark. 97 (1999) (circumstantial evidence must exclude reasonable hypotheses of innocence; jury province)
Bridges v. State, 46 Ark. App. 198 (1994) (jurors consider evidence as a whole; may draw reasonable inferences)
Shipley v. State, 25 Ark. App. 262 (1988) (jury may infer from circumstantial evidence)