Johnson v. State
| Docket Number: | 2009-CT-00552-SCT Linked Case(s): 2009-KA-00552-COA ; 2009-KA-00552-COA ; 2009-CT-00552-SCT ; 2009-CT-00552-SCT |
|
| Supreme Court: | Opinion Link Opinion Date: 11-17-2011 Opinion Author: Chandler, J. Holding: Reversed and Rendered |
|
| Additional Case Information: |
Topic: Possession of cocaine - Constructive possession - Sufficiency of evidence Judge(s) Concurring: Waller, C.J., Dickinson, P.J., Kitchens and Pierce, JJ. Non Participating Judge(s): King, J. Dissenting Author : Carlson, P.J. Dissent Joined By : Randolph and Lamar, JJ. Procedural History: Jury Trial Nature of the Case: CRIMINAL - FELONY Writ of Certiorari: Granted Appealed from Court of Appeals |
|
| Trial Court: |
Date of Trial Judgment: 03-06-2009 Appealed from: Marion County Circuit Court Judge: R. I. Prichard, III Disposition: CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF A CONTROLLED SUBSTANCE AND SENTENCED TO SIXTEEN YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITH NINE YEARS SUSPENDED, FIVE YEARS OF POST-RELEASE SUPERVISION, AND TO PAY A $3,000 FINE Case Number: K07-0372P |
|
| Note: | The supreme court found that the State had failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the Appellant was in constructive possession of cocaine found in a nearby vehicle by holding that proximity alone is insufficient to show constructive possession. | |
| Party Name: | Attorney Name: | Brief(s) Available: | ||
| Appellant: | Arvin Phillip Johnson |
ROBERT B. MCDUFF
SIBYL C. BYRD
MICHAEL P. ADDIS
CHARLES E. LAWRENCE, JR.
CHARLES E. LAWRENCE, III |
||
| Appellee: | State of Mississippi | OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL: W. GLENN WATTS |
|
|
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 - Constructive possession - Sufficiency of evidence |
| Summary of the Facts: | Alvin Johnson was convicted of possession of cocaine and sentenced to sixteen years, with nine years suspended, five years of post-release supervision, and a $3,000 fine. He appealed, and the Court of Appeals affirmed Johnson’s conviction and sentence. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. |
| Summary of Opinion Analysis: | Because Johnson did not have actual possession of the cocaine, Johnson was found guilty of constructive possession. He argues that the State failed to prove both elements for constructive possession. In order to establish constructive possession, there must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that defendant was aware of the presence and character of the particular substance and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it. Constructive possession may be shown by establishing that the drug involved was subject to the defendant’s dominion or control. Absent some competent evidence connecting him with the contraband, the defendant is entitled to acquittal. It is undisputed that the car in which the cocaine was found was not at the gas station at the time the informant bought the marijuana. Johnson was at not at the gas station at the time of the drug exchange. Both the vehicle and Johnson arrived at the gas station within the short time between the drug exchange and the MBN agents’ arrival. However, the State presented no evidence showing that Johnson had driven the car to the gas station or that he had been a passenger of the car. The State has the burden of establishing constructive possession. The State solely used an agent’s testimony to establish Johnson’s connection to the cocaine in the vehicle. When asked if the vehicle was registered in Johnson’s name, the agent testified that it was not. His testimony also revealed that no legal documents indicated Johnson was the owner of the car. Further, he could not recall exactly who the car belonged to or who actually picked up the car from the scene. Thus, the State did not provide any competent evidence as to the owner of the car or who moved the car from the scene. Johnson’s failure to object to the agent’s testimony cannot be used to support an inference that Johnson was affiliated with the car. The State failed to present sufficient evidence as to the ownership of the car or who actually removed the car. In addition to proving Johnson had dominion and control over the car, the State must also show additional incriminating circumstances. Specifically, the State must prove that Johnson was intentionally and consciously in possession of the cocaine. Johnson was not the owner of the car. In fact, no one ever saw Johnson in the car or driving the car. Even if Johnson had been driving the car, the white plastic bag that contained the cocaine was above the sun visor, which was in the upright position. The police did not find Johnson’s fingerprints on the bag containing the cocaine. In fact, the police did not even check the bag for fingerprints. When the agents performed a pat-down on Johnson, they found no incriminating evidence or weapons. Therefore, the State presented no incriminating circumstances to support the inference that Johnson constructively possessed the cocaine found in the nearby vehicle. |
Home | Terms of Use | About the JDP | Feedback | Using JDP | MC Law Library | Mississippi Supreme Court
