Worsham v. State, 2017 Ark. App. 702

Officers responded to a welfare check at a Motel 6 room rented in appellant’s name; appellant, two other adult men, and appellant’s young children were present.
In plain view on a nightstand officers observed drug paraphernalia; after consenting to a search appellant had methamphetamine and marijuana residue on his person and admitted ownership of some items.
A subsequent consent search of the room produced additional drug paraphernalia, pipes with marijuana and methamphetamine residue, and small bags containing methamphetamine.
Appellant was charged with multiple counts, including maintaining a drug premises (Class C felony); after trial a jury convicted on the remaining counts and the court sentenced appellant to a total of 192 months.
On appeal appellant challenged (1) the sufficiency of the evidence supporting maintaining a drug premises and (2) the denial of a mistrial based on prosecution questioning that allegedly shifted the burden of proof.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency — "keep or maintain" element of maintaining a drug premises	State: evidence showed appellant rented the room, opened the door, consented to the search, and admitted ownership of some contraband linking him to the premises	Brown: he merely borrowed the room for a night and did not keep or maintain it for drug use or distribution	Affirmed — substantial circumstantial evidence supported that Brown kept/maintained the premises (rental, control, admissions, contraband in room)
Sufficiency — purpose of premises for others to use/obtain drugs	State: paraphernalia (pipes, baggies, syringes, spoons) and residue supported inference the room was used for drug use/distribution	Brown: State failed to prove the room’s purpose was drug use/distribution rather than incidental storage	Affirmed — jury could infer purpose from paraphernalia, residue, and appellant’s inconsistent statements
Mistrial for burden-shifting question	State: question was permissible to show defense could have requested fingerprinting; not an improper shift of burden	Brown: prosecutor’s question implied he had to request analysis, shifting burden and creating an evidentiary hole central to his defense; mistrial required	Denied — court sustained objection, gave curative admonition to disregard the question; admonition sufficed and denial of mistrial was not an abuse of discretion

Stover v. State, 437 S.W.3d 695 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (standard for reviewing sufficiency and directed-verdict challenges)
Loggins v. State, 372 S.W.3d 785 (Ark. 2010) (treating directed verdict as sufficiency challenge)
King v. State, 432 S.W.3d 127 (Ark. Ct. App. 2014) (substantial-evidence standard and review limitations)
Walley v. State, 112 S.W.3d 349 (Ark. 2003) (jury may use common sense and infer guilt from improbable explanations)
Zachary v. State, 188 S.W.3d 917 (Ark. 2004) (admonition suffices to cure prejudicial remarks when defendant does not object further)