With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". innocently touched the truck’s passenger-door handle during that limited time, in that limited geographical area, while the truck was in the possession of one of the assailants. The truck was a movable object, and it is reasonable to conclude that, rather than touching the truck as he entered the truck during the aggravated robbery, appellant instead later encountered the truck and touched it at that time. There is simply no way to determine when or where appellant touched the truck even during that discrete time and limited area. Accordingly, we conclude that the evidence was insufficient to support the convictions, as the State’s evidence failed to exclude every other reasonable conclusion but that of appellant’s guilt. See Standridge v. State, 310 Ark. 408, 837 S.W.2d 447 (1992) (<HOLDING>). Therefore, we reverse and dismiss. Reversed

A: holding evidence of presence of marijuana plants on property puckett jointly owned with his wife was not sufficient to create rational inference that puckett was in possession of the marijuana
B: holding that a thumbprint on an easily movable cup found beside a tent that was located six to fifteen feet away from marijuana plants was insufficient to prove that the defendant was manufacturing marijuana as there was no evidence suggesting when or where the defendant touched the cup
C: holding evidence of marijuana plants on premises defendant owned with his wife insufficient where marijuana plants were grown in an uncultivated area and there was a total absence of evidence of the defendants involvement
D: holding that guilty plea to indictment charging distribution of 1000 marijuana plants did not establish amount of marijuana involved for sentencing purposes where defendant had specifically reserved the issue on entering his plea
B.