Hudson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2007-CT-02016-SCT Linked Case(s): 2007-KA-02016-COA ; 2007-KA-02016-COA ; 2007-CT-02016-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 03-25-2010 Opinion Author: Waller, C.J. Holding: Reversed and rendered. |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine - Sufficiency of evidence - Intentional and conscious possession Judge(s) Concurring: Carlson and Graves, P.JJ., Dickinson, Lamar and Kitchens, JJ. Dissenting Author : Randolph, J., with separate written opinion. Dissent Joined By : Chandler and Pierce, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: yes Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 11-01-2007 Appealed from: WINSTON COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT Judge: Clarence E. Morgan, III Disposition: The jury found Vincent Hudson not guilty of all three counts of possession of the drugs in the bag on the back seat of the car, but returned a guilty verdict with respect to the felony charge of possession of the “trace” amount of cocaine found in his clothes. Because he was found to be a habitual offender pursuant to Mississippi Code Section 99-19-83 (Rev. 2007),4 the Winston County Circuit Court sentenced Vincent to life imprisonment in the custody of the Mississippi Department of Corrections (“MDOC”) without eligibility for parole. The Court of Appeals confirmed the conviction. District Attorney: Doug Evans Case Number: 2007-022CR |
|
| Note: | This opinion reverses a previous decision by the Court of Appeals and renders a judgment. View the original COA opinion at: http://www.mssc.state.ms.us/Images/Opinions/CO53443.pdf | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Vincent Carnell Hudson a/k/a Slim |
OFFICE OF INDIGENT APPEALS: PHILLIP W. BROADHEAD, LESLIE S. LEE |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: LISA LYNN BLOUNT |
|
|
Synopsis provided by:  If you are interested in subscribing to the weekly synopses of all Mississippi Supreme Court and Court of Appeals hand downs please contact Tammy Upton in the MLI Press office. |
|
| Topic: | Possession of cocaine - Sufficiency of evidence - Intentional and conscious possession |
| Summary of the Facts: | Vincent Hudson was convicted of possession of a “trace” amount of cocaine. He was sentenced as a habitual offender to life imprisonment without eligibility for parole. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed his conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | The State has to prove that the defendant was aware of the cocaine and intentionally, but not necessarily physically, possessed it. To test whether the prosecution met this standard of proof in individual cases, each case must be viewed in light of its individual facts and circumstances. Here, it is undisputed that the “trace” amount of cocaine which Vincent was convicted of possessing was in the pockets of the clothes he was wearing when he was arrested. Hence, at the time of his arrest, Vincent actually physically possessed the cocaine. Vincent argues that possession of a “trace” amount of cocaine is insufficient to support a conviction of actual possession. Specifically, Vincent argues that the State did not prove that he knew the minuscule, unweighable amount of cocaine was present in his pockets, and if he did not know it was there, then obviously, he could not have consciously and intentionally possessed it. Possession of a mere “trace” amount of illegal drugs is sufficient to support a conviction. Regardless of the amount, however, the prosecution in this case was required to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Vincent was aware of the presence and character of the cocaine in his pockets and that he intentionally and consciously possessed it. In other words, the prosecution had to prove both “knowledge” and “intent,” i.e., that Vincent knew it was in his pockets, knew it was cocaine, and intended to possess it. This burden of proof is more difficult to meet when “trace” amounts are involved, because such minuscule amounts can go unnoticed. But it is not impossible to prove. The State did not meet this burden in this case. Although the prosecution did establish that the cocaine was, in fact, physically present in Vincent’s clothes, that is not enough. The State still had to prove that Vincent knew it was there. The only evidence presented at trial in this regard was the testimony of Brandy Goodman, the forensic examiner who discovered the “trace” amount of cocaine in two of Vincent’s pockets. As Vincent’s counsel pointed out and Goodman conceded, a person could have “a terrible time seeing” it. Therefore, the fact that the cocaine could have been seen does not establish that Vincent did, in fact, see it. It is entirely possible that the cocaine found in Vincent’s pockets was visible, but Vincent never saw it or knew it was there. That possibility is tantamount to reasonable doubt. Vincent did not admit to using the drugs or claim ownership of the cocaine. In fact, Vincent specifically denied any knowledge of any controlled substances in the car. Beyond Goodman’s testimony, the prosecution adduced no evidence whatsoever that Vincent knew the “trace” amount of cocaine was in his pockets. Thus, the State did not prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Vincent was “aware” of the cocaine’s presence in his pockets, much less that he intentionally and consciously was in possession of it, both required elements of the crime of possession. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
