In Robelo v. State, the Arkansas Court of Appeals appears to have invented facts to make their decision easier to make. The case revolved around the sufficiency of evidence linking Robelo to drugs found in a jointly occupied residence. The State must prove additional linking factors other than mere presence to connect Robelo to the drugs. The State attempted to show a drug deal took place between Robelo and a CI. However, neither officer that followed the CI and Robelo back to an apartment complex could see where they went or if they went to the same place.
Fortunately for the State, the Arkansas Court of Appeals went ahead and decided that not only did a drug deal take place, but also that it took place between Robelo and the CI in apartment A. Then of course found that to be a sufficient link to connect Robelo to the drugs. It is incredible that the Court of Appeals could determine that a drug deal took place in apartment A between Robelo and the CI when the officers could not. Officer Holmes stated, “I was able to look back at the apartment, but I didn’t see anything until the informant left. ” Then later testified, “I didn’t see anyone going in and out of apartment A.” Investigator Medina simply said that he was at the park and could not get close.
So I ask once more, how did the Court of Appeals see Robelo and/or the CI go into apartment A if the officers did not?