With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". of acquittal should have been granted. In order for the trial court to grant a motion for acquittal, there must be no substantial evidence from which the jury could find for the nonmoving party, and there must be no way that reasonable minds could reach any other conclusion. See Larimore v. State, 309 Ark. 414, 833 S.W.2d 358, 359 (1992); McGalliard v. State, 306 Ark. 181, 813 S.W.2d 768, 769 (1991). Circumstantial evidence may constitute substantial evidence warranting the denial of a motion for acquittal. See Davasher v. State, 308 Ark. 154, 823 S.W.2d 863, 868, cert. denied, — U.S. —, 112 S.Ct. 2948, 119 L.Ed.2d 571 (1992). This court must consider whether the evidence in this case warranted a j 93, 695 (1981) (same). But see Olles v. State, 260 Ark. 571, 542 S.W.2d 755, 758 (1976) (<HOLDING>), overruled on other grounds by White v. State,

A: holding possession alone cannot sufficiently corroborate the testimony of an accomplice when the stolen property was not sufficiently identified at trial
B: recognizing distinction made in maynard that one accomplices outofcourt statement may corroborate the incourt testimony of another accomplice but outofcourt testimony of a testifying accomplice cannot be used to corroborate his own testimony
C: holding that recovery of trash containing stolen property from outside appellants apartment is factor that tends to corroborate accomplice testimony
D: holding that the property owners testimony alone placed the value of the stolen property above the amount necessary to constitute grand larceny
A.