Page:Jones v. State, 357 Ark. 545 (2004).pdf/10

554 possessed more than 200 milligrams of a stimulant drug [methamphetamine]," id., was sufficient to meet the test of sufficiency of the evidence. See also Moore v. State, 304 Ark. 257, 801 S.W.2d 638 (1990) (stating that a vial containing 100 milligrams of methamphetamine seized from appellant's person would support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance even in light of a Harbison challenge).

[10] In the case before us, appellant possessed 883.9 milligrams of the methamphetamine compound, an amount that greatly exceeds the 200 milligrams of a methamphetamine compound that we found sufficient in Piercefield, supra. Therefore, we hold that the trial court did not err in denying appellant's motion for directed verdict on the methamphetamine-possession charge.

For the third point on appeal, appellant argues with little analysis that the trial court erred in denying appellant's motion for directed verdict on the paraphernalia charge. Specifically, appellant contends that the State did not prove that the syringe found on appellant's person was ever analyzed for residue or for use. For that reason, appellant maintains that he did not violate Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-403(c)(1)(A)(I) (Supp. 2003).

It is unlawful for any person to use, or to possess with intent to use, drug paraphernalia to inject methamphetamine. Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-403(c)(1)(A)(I). The term, drug paraphernalia, specifically includes "&#8288;[h]ypodermic syringes intended for use, or designed for use in parenterally injecting controlled substances into the human body[.]" Ark. Code Ann. § 5-64-101(v)(11) (Repl. 1997).