I N T H E SUPR EM E C O UR T O F M I SS I SS I PPI NO. 2 0 0 7 - CT - 0 2 0 1 6 - S CT V IN C EN T C A R N EL L H U D S O N a/k/ a S L IM
v. STATE OFM

I SS I SS I PPI ON W RI T OF CE RT I ORARI
D A T E O F JU D G M E N T : 11/ 01/ 2007 T R IA L JU D G E : H O N . C . E . M O R G A N , III COURT F ROM W HI CH APP EAL ED: W I NST ON COU NTY CI RCUI T COURT ATTO RN EYS FOR A PP ELLAN T: OFFI CE O F I ND I GEN T APPEALS BY : P HI L L I P W . BR OADHE AD LESL I E S. LEE AT T OR NE Y F OR AP P E L L E E : OF F I CE OF T HE AT T OR NE Y GE NE RA L BY : LI SA LY NN BLO UN T DI S T RI CT AT T OR NE Y: DOUG E VANS NAT UR E OF T HE CA S E : CR I M I NAL - F E L ONY D I SPO SI T I O N : R E V E R SE D A N D R E N D E R E D - 03/ 25/ 2010 M OT I ON F OR RE HE AR I NG F I L E D: M ANDAT E I S S UE D: EN BA NC. W ALLER, CH I EF J UST I CE, FOR TH E COU RT: ¶1 . T h is certi o ra ri re v iew a rise s fro m V ince n t H u d so n ’s co n v ict ion o f po sses sion o f a “tr ace ” amount of

c ocai ne f

ound i n hi s cl othes . B eca us e the evi dence i ntr oduced a ttr i al w as i ns uf f i ci entt o s how thathe knew the coc ai ne w as pr es entand t hat he cons ci ous l y and i nt ent i onal l y had pos s es s ed i t , w e r ever s e and r enderH uds on’ s c onvi ct i on a nd the W i ns t on

### It

w as later deter

mined that

thecar wa s regi st er ed t o Osl er M. Hous ton of

Rock 1 

### Island , Illino is. 2 C ounty C i r cui tC our t ’ s i m pos i t i on upon hi m of a l i fe sent ence w i thoutthe pos s i bi l i ty of p a ro le . FACTS ¶2. O n February 6, 2007, V i ncentC arnel l H uds on ( “ V i nc e nt ” ) w a s r i di ng i n the pas s enger s eatof a ca rdr i ven by hi s br other , H i l l ut e H uds on ( “H i l l ut e”) . A s the vehi cl e w as tr avel i ng 1 on B arrym or e Str eeti n L oui s vi l l e, M i s s i s s i ppi , O f f i cerPatr i ck Est es of

the Loui s vi l l e Pol i ce D epart m entpul l ed i toverf ors peedi ng. J us taf

t erthe s t op, O f

f i cerE st es no t i ced w hathe cal l ed “e xtr eme [ and] unnece s s ary m ovement ” by V i nc e nt . W he n h e a ppr oache d the vehi cl e, O f f i cerE s t es l earned H i l l ut e’ s i dent i ty w hen he a s ked f orhi s dr i ver ’ s l i cens e. Pr i ort o t he tr af f i c s t op and as O f

f i cerE s t es w as conver s i ng w i th H i l l ut e, V i ncentw as dri nki ng beerand eat i ng chi cken. O f

f i cerE s t es r eturned t o hi s patr ol caran d ran a bac kgr ound chec k on H i l l ut e, by w hi ch he l earned thatH i l l ute had a sus pended l i cens e. H i l l ut e al s o had an out s t andi ng w arr anti s s ued by the Phi l adel phi a, M i s s i s s i ppi , Pol i ce D epart m entf orcont empt o f co u rt . W h il e h e w as w ri ti n g the c it ati o n s, O ffi ce r E ste s sa w V ince n t l o o k ing b ac k w ard t ow ar d the patr ol carand r eac hi ng t ow ar d the bac k s eatof the ca r . A s a pr eca ut i on, O f f i cer E s t es cal l ed Li eut enantA ndy T ayl ort o the s cene and appr oache d the vehi cl e aga i n. ¶3. O f

f i cerE s t es arr es t ed H i l l ut e f ordr i vi ng w i th a s us pended l i cens e and pur s uantt o the
o u tsta n d in g w a rra n t. O ffic e r E ste s p a tted d o w n H ill u te a n d fo u n d m a riju a n a in a c ig a re tte p ac k ag e o n h is pe rson . H il lute w as h an d cu ffed an d sec u red in the b ac k o f th e p atrol ca r. T hen, O f f i cerE s t es r eturned t o the vehi cl e, w her e he a rr es t ed V i ncentf orhavi ng the open

### Hil lut e l at er adm itte d to pos se ss ion of themari juana f oundon his pe rs on and the 2 

### mari juana f ound in t he a shtray. T h e re c o rd d o es n o t i n d icate, and the S tat e p u t f o rth n o ev iden ce at tri al, that jail 3 o ffic ials fo u n d a n y c o n tro lled su b sta n c e s o n V in c e n t’s p e rso n o r in h is c lo th e s a t th e jail. 

### 3 cont ai ne rof

be e ri n v i ol a t i on of

a l oc a l or di na nc e . V i nc e ntw a s pa t t e d d own, chec ked, handcuf f ed, and pl ace d i n the bac k of the patrol caras w el l . B oth O f f i cerE s t es and L i eut enantT ayl ors ear ched V i ncent , butnei theroff i cerfound any contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s on V i ncent ’ s per s on ori n hi s cl othes dur i ng thes e pat - dow n s ear ches . O f f i cerE s t es and L i eut enantT ayl orthen s ear ched the vehi cl e and f ound s om e mar i

j uana i n the as htr ay. T hey 2 al s o f ound a bag on the bac k s eatof the ca rnearthe ar ea O f f i cerE s t es had s een V i ncent
r eac hi ng. T he bag c ont ai ned coc ai ne, m ethyl enedi oxym ethamphet ami ne ( “ecs t acy” ) , and
m ar i j uana. O f

f i cerE s t es then ca l l ed A gentB arry M cW hi r t erof the M i s s i s s i ppi B ur eau of N a rc o tic s to th e s c e n e to h a n d le th e d ru g s . ¶4. T he H ud son brot hers w er e tr ans por t ed t o the W i ns t on C ounty j ai l f orques t i oni ng. V ince n t st ated d u ri n g q u esti o n ing that h e d id n o t kn o w an y thing ab o u t th e d rug s in the ca r. A gentM cW hi r t ert es t i f

i ed tha t , du r i ng ques t i oni ng, V i ncentappea r ed t o have be en i m pai r ed. W he n Agen tM c W hi r t eras ked V i ncentabouthi s i m pai r m ent , V i ncents t at ed thathe had be en w or ki ng ar ound p ai nt t hi nnerear l i erthatday w hi l e pai nt i ng a vehi cl e. A ts om e poi nt th e re a fte r, th e c lo th e s V in c e n t h a d b e e n w e a rin g a t th e tim e o f h is a rre st w e re s e ize d b y jail of f i ci al s . A gentM cW hi r t erw as notpr es entatthe t i m e V i ncent ’ s cl othes w er e s ei zed.

3 ¶ 5 . T h e d a y a fte r th e arr e st, A g e n t M c W h irter co llec ted V in c e n t’s c lo th e s fro m the jail. T he f ol l ow i ng day, A gentM cW hi r t erper s onal l y tr ans por t ed the cl othes , al ong w i th the bag of drugs f ound on the bac k s eatof the ca r , t o the M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e L abor at ory. A gent

### 4

M c W h irter tes tified th a t h e h a d se ize d V in c e n t’s c lo th e s a n d h a d a sk e d th e c rim e la b to “che ck the pocke t s of

the pant s and s hi r t. . . [ i ] n c as e ther e had been anythi ng i n the pocke t of evi dent i ary val ue thatthey coul d f i nd thatw oul d be r el at ed t o ourcas e. ” The M i s s i s s i ppi C r i m e Labor at ory t es t ed V i ncent ’s clothi ng and l at err eport ed that“tr ace ” amount s of cocaine w er e f

ound i n them. V i ncentw as c har ged w i th one countof f el ony pos s es s i on of the coca i ne i n hi s cl othes and one count , each, of f el ony poss es s i on of the coc ai ne, ecs t acy, an d m arij u an a fo u n d in the b ag o n the b ac k sea t of th e c ar. ¶6. A t tr i al on N ovember 1, 2007, i n addi t i on t o t es t i m ony f r om O f f i cer E s t es and A gent M cW hi r t er , the s t at e cr i m e l ab f or ens i c exa m i ner , B r andy G oodm an, t es t i f i ed thats he had t es t ed V i ncent ’ s cl othi ng and had f ound a “tr ace ” amountof coca i ne i n one s hi r tpocketand one pant s pocket . She des cr i bed a “ tr ace ” amountas “an am ou nt t hat I can phys i cal l y s ee thatther e i s s om ethi ng ther e, buti ti s nota w ei ghabl e amountof s ubs t ance . ” G oodm an sta ted th a t, by an am o u n t w h ich sh e ca n “p h y sic a lly se e ,” sh e m e a n s “ ju st a v e ry , v e ry m in u te amount of

s ubst ance [ s uch as ] pos s i bl y f l akes orcrum bs . ” Tw o vi al s w er e pr oduced a nd enter ed int o ev i den ce con t ai ning w hat w as l efto f the subst ance found i n V i ncen t ’s cl othes. G oodm an s t at ed thats om e of t he s ubs t ance had bee n des tr oyed thr ough the che m i cal t es t i ng, bu tthat the v i al s contai ned “m ostof w hat [ she] foun d” i n V i ncen t ’s clothes. N on et heles s, G oodm an admi t t ed on cr os s - exami nat i on thatthe s ubs t ance i n the vi al s w as “ a l otl es s ” than
one- t enth of

a gr am. W hen V i ncent ’ s def ens e couns el exami ned the vi al s and publ i s hed them t o the j ury, he s t at ed, “I am havi ng a t err i bl e t i m e s eei ng anythi ng i n ther e, ” t o w hi ch G o o d m an rep li ed , “[t ] h at i s be ca u se itw as a trace am o u n t. ” A t the c o n clus ion of th e S tat e’s

### Vinc ent was convi ct ed in 1978 and s er ved ne arly three years , f

rom 1978 to 1981, 4 

### on a fi ve- year s ent enc e f

or f el ony shopl if

ting, a two- year s ent enc e f

or pos se ss ion of

heroin, anda on e-year sentence fo r agg ravatedassau lt ona law en forcement officer. V incent also was convi ct ed in 1982 for ar me d robbe ry and se rve d more than f if te en years of a

thirty-ye ar se nte nc e , f

r om 19 82 t o 1 99 7. Fina l ly, Vinc e nt wa s c onvi c t e d in 2 00 5 f or f e l ony drivi ng under theinf lue nce(DUI ) and se rve d jus t ove r a year on a fi ve- year s ent enc e. 5 cas e- i n- chi ef

, V i ncent ’ s def

ens e couns el m oved f

ora dir ect ed ver di ct , w hi ch w as deni ed. V in c e n t d id n o t te s tif

y . ¶7. T he j ury f

ound V i ncentH uds on notgui l ty of al l thr ee co un t s of po s s es s i on of the drugs i n the bag on the back s eatof the ca r , butr eturned a gui l ty ver di ctw i th r es pectt o t he fel on y ch arge of possess i on of the “t race” am ou nt of cocai ne foun d in hi s cl othes. B ecause he w as f ound t o be a ha bi tual of

f enderpur s uantt o M i s s i s s i ppi C ode Sect i on 99- 19- 83 ( R ev. 2007) , the W i ns t on C ount y C i r cui tC our ts ent ence d V i ncentt o l i f e i m pr i s onm enti n the 4
cus t ody o f

the M i s s i s s i pp i Depa r t mento f Corr e c t i on s ( “ M D O C”) wi tho ute l i gi bi l i t y f or par ol e. V i ncentf

i l ed an uns ucce s s f

ul pos t - tr i al mot i on f

ora j udgm entnotw i ths t andi ng t he
v e rd ic t ( JN O V ) o r, a lte rn a tiv e ly , fo r a n e w tr ia l. ¶8 . A gg r i e ve d by h i s c on vi ct i on and s ent ence , V i ncentappea l ed, ar gui ng t hat t he
e v id e n c e w a s in su ffic ien t to c o n v ict h im , an d th a t h is s e n ten c e is g ro ss ly d isp ro p o rtio n a te to the cr i m e of

w hi ch he w as convi ct ed and a m ou nts t o cruel and unus ual puni s hm ent . T he C o u rto f A p p ea ls affi rm ed V ince n t’ s c o n v ict ion a n d se n tenc e b y a v o te of n ine to ze ro (9 -0). Hu d so n v. S ta te , 2009 W L 311167 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. Feb. 10, 2009) . V i ncentpet i t i oned f or cert i or ar i , w hi ch thi s C our tgr ant ed on N ovember5, 2009. W e f i nd the f i r s ti s s ue r egar di ng th e s u ff ic ie n c y o f t h e e v id e n c e d is p o s itiv e .

S TANDA RD O F REVI EW

### 6

¶9. I n cons i der i ng w hetherthe evi dence i s s uf f i ci entt o s us t ai n a convi ct i on i n t he f ace of
a mo t i o n f

o rd i r e c t e d v e r d i c to rf

o rJ NOV, t h e c r i t i c a l i n q u i ry i s wh e th e rt h e e v i d e n c e s h o ws “bey on d a reasonab l e do ub tthat the acc used com m i t t ed t he actcharged, and t hat he did so unders uch ci r cumst ance s thate very e l ementof the of f ens e exi s t ed; and w her e the evi dence f ai l s t o m eetthi s t es ti ti s i ns uf f i ci entt o s uppor ta con vi ct i on. ” B u sh v. S ta te , 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng Ca rrv. S ta te , 208 So. 2d 886, 889 ( M i s s . 1968) ) . H ence , the
r el evantques t i on i s “ w hether , a f t ervi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o t he p r o s e c u t i o n , a n y r a t i o n a l tr i e ro f f a c tc o u l d h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s o f th e c r i me beyond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” D ilw o r th v. S ta te , 909 So. 2d 731, 736 ( M i s s . 2005) ( ci t i ng J a c kso n v. V

irg in ia , 4 4 3 U .S . 3 0 7 , 3 1 5 , 9 9 S . C t. 2 7 8 1 , 6 1 L . E d . 2 d 5 6 0 (1 9 7 9 )) . W e expl ai ned i n D ilwor th th a t: Shoul d the f

act s and i nf

er ence s cons i der ed i n a cha l l enge t o the s uf f i ci ency of th e e v id e n c e p o in t in fa v o r o f th e d e fe n d a n t on an y e lem e n t o f th e o ffe n se w ith su ffic ien t fo rc e th a t re a so n a b le m e n c o u ld n o t h a v e fo u n d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t th e d e fe n d a n t w a s g u ilty , the p ro p e r r e m e d y is f o r th e a p p e llate co u rtto rev erse an d ren d er, i
. e. r ever s e and di s char ge. H ow ever , i f a r evi ew o f th e e v id e n c e re v e a ls th a t itis o f su c h q u a lity a n d w e ig h t th a t, “h a v in g in m ind the b ey o n d a rea so n ab le d o u b t bu rde n o f p roo f stan d ard , rea so n ab le fair
m i nd ed m en i n the exe r ci s e of i m part i al j udgm entm i ghtr eac h di f f er ent c o n c lu sio n s o n ev e ry e lem e n t o f th e o ffe n se ,” th e e v id e n c e w ill b e d e e m e d to h a v e b e e n s u ff

ic ie n t. D ilw o rth , 9 0 9 S o . 2 d a t 7 3 6 (i n te rn a l c ita tio n s o m itte d ). DI S CU S S I ON W h eth er th e e v ide n ce w a s su ffi cien t to c o n v ict V inc en t. ¶ 1 0 . V i ncentw a s c ha r ge d a nd c on vi c t e d u nd e rM i s s i s s i pp i Code Se c t i on 41
- 29- 1 3 9 (c)(1)(A ), w h ich m ak es ita c ri m e to p o sses s less tha n o n e-ten th (0 . 1 0 ) g ram o f a

### Section41 -29 -13 9(c) (1) (A) give s t he prose cutor di sc re ti on to c harge t he c rimeeither 5 

### as a f el ony, whi ch carrie s a maxim um pri son te rm

of four year s, or a s a

mi sde me anor , whi ch carries a maximum priso n term o f on e year. Id. As thec onstit uti onal it y of Sec ti on 41-29- 13 9(c)(1 )(A) h as no t beensp ecifically plead ed, we do n ot address it h ere. T ra in e r v . S ta te , 9 3 0 S o . 2 d 3 7 3 , 3 7 7 (M iss . 2 0 0 6 ); Martin v. L ow ery , 9 1 2 S o . 2 d 4 6 1 , 4 6 6 (M is s . 2 0 0 5 ). 

### 7 contr ol l ed s ubs t ance . M i s s . C ode A nn. § 41- 29- 139(c ) ( 1) ( A ) ( R ev. 2009) . Poss es s i on of 5
a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e m a y b e a c tu a l o r c o n s tru c tiv e . B e rr y v. S ta te , 65 2 S o. 2d 74 5 (M i ss. 1995) ( ci t i ng W

o lf v. S ta te , 260 So. 2d 425, 432 ( M i ss. 1972)) . T hi s C our thas expl ai ned th a t: [ w ] hatcons t i tut es a suf f i ci entext ernal re l at i ons hi p bet w een the def endantand t he na r c ot i c pr op e r ty t o c ompl e t e the c on c e ptof “ po s s e s s i on : ” i s a qu e s t i on w hi ch i s nots us cept i bl e t o a s peci f i c rul e. H ow ever , ther e mustbe s uf f i ci ent f act s t o w arr anta f

i ndi ng thatdef

endantw as aw ar e of

the pr es ence and c h a ra c ter o f th e p a rticu lar su b sta n c e an d w a s in ten tio n a lly a n d c o n sc io u sly in pos s es s i on of

i t . I tneed notbe ac tual phys i cal pos s es s i on. C ons truct i ve pos s es s i on may be s how n by es t abl i s hi ng thatthe drug i nvol ved w as s ubj ect t o hi s dom i ni on orcontr ol . Pr oxi m i ty i s us ual l y an es s ent i al el ement , butby i t sel f i s not adequ at e i n the absence o f other i ncri m i nati ng ci rcum st ances. D ix o n v. S ta te , 953 So. 2d 1108, 1112 (M i s s . 2007) ( quot i ng C u rr y v. S ta te , 249 So. 2d 414, 4 1 6 (M is s . 1 9 7 1 ). ¶11. I n ot herw or ds , “[ t ] he l aw s t at es thatactual pos s es s i on i s notneeded, that cons truct i ve po sses si on w i l l do. ” Sm ith v. S ta te , 839 So. 2d 489, 497 ( M i s s . 2003) . N everthel es s , t he “aw ar enes s ” and “ cons ci ous i nt entt o po s s e s s ” e l ement s appl y t o both actual and cons truct i ve pos s es s i on. The onl y di f f er ence i s that , w i th a ctual pos s es s i on, the drug i s a ctual l y f ound on the def endant ’ s per s on ( i
. e. , i n hi s hands, m outh, pocket s , et c. ) , w her eas , w i th cons truct i ve pos s es s i on, the drug i s s i m pl y f ound “ near ” the def

endant ’ s pe r s on i n a pl ace overw hi ch the def endantexer ci s es dom i ni on orcontr ol . T hus , “[ t ] he St at e ha[ s ] t o pr ove that[ the

### 8

d e fe n d a n t] w a s a w a re o f t h e c o c a in e a n d in te n tio n a lly , b u t n o t n e c e ss a rily p hy sic a lly , pos s es s ed i t . ” I

d. ( ci t i ng C u rry , 249 So. 2d at416) ( emphasi s added) . “[ T ] o t es tw hether the pr os ecut i on m etthi s s t andar d of pr oof i n i ndi vi dual cas es [ , ] eac h cas e mustbe vi ew ed in lig h t o f its in d iv id u a l f a c ts a n d c ir c u m s ta n c e s [.]” C u n n in g h a m v. S ta te , 583 So. 2d 960, 962 ( M i s s . 1991) ( ci t i ng C u rry , 2 4 9 S o . 2 d at 41 6 ). ¶12. H er e, i ti s undi s put ed thatthe “tr ace ” amountof coca i ne w hi ch V i ncentw as convi ct ed of pos s es s i ng w as i n the pocket s of the cl othes he w as w ear i ng w hen he w as ar r es t ed. H ence , atthe t i m e of

hi s arr es t , V i ncentactual l y phys i cal l y pos s es s ed the coc ai ne. T he St at e f ound i tne ces s ary t o a ppl y the “cons truct i ve pos s es s i on” r at i onal e r egar di ng the drugs i n the bag fo u n d o n th e b a c k se a t o f th e c a r, b u t V in c e n t w a s a c q u itt e d o f th o se c h a rg e s. T h u s, th is appea l does noti nvol ve an i s s ue of c ons truct i ve pos s es s i on. B ute ven i f i tdi d, as the di s s ent
ar gues , the St at e s t i l l w as r equi r ed t o prove t hatV i ncent“w as aw ar e of the coc ai ne and i nt ent i onal l y . . . pos s es s ed i t . ” Sm ith , 839 So. 2d at497. ¶1 3. T he St at e ar gues t hati t“ e s t a bl i s he d the c l othe s be l on ge d t o Huds on , the cl ot hes cont ai ned coc ai ne[ , ] and a j ur orcoul d re as onabl y i nf erH uds on knew t he cl othes cont ai ned [ cocaine] . ” In ot her w ords, the S t at e assert s t hat “[ o] ne cou l d reas on ably i nferthat because the coc ai ne w as i n t he shi r tand pant s pocket s H uds on w as w ear i ng atthe t i m e of arr es tthat he had know l edge thathe pos s es s ed the drug. ” V i ncenta r gues thatpos s es s i on of a “tr ace ” amount of

coca i ne i s i ns uf

f i ci entt o supporta convi ct i on of actual pos s es s i on. Speci f i cal l y, V i ncentar gues thatthe St at e di d notpr ove thathe kne w the m i nus cul e, unw ei ghabl e amount of coca i ne w as present i n hi s pocket s , and i f he di d notknow i tw as ther e, then obvi ous l y,

### Vin cent also argu ed befo re th e C ourt o f App eals th at th e pro secutio n h ad failedto 6 

### provethat t

he c lot hes in whi ch the c oca ine was found werehis own cl othe s. Howeve r, Vin cent d oes n ot assert th is issue b efore th is Co urt, so we d o n ot ad dress it. 9 h e c o u ld n o t h a v e c o n s c io u s ly a n d in te n tio n a lly p o s s e s s e d it. See D i xon , 953 S o. 2d at1112- 13. 6 ¶ 1 4 . W ith re g a rd to p o ss e ss io n o f a c o n tro lled s u b s ta n c e , th is C o u rt p re v io u sly h a s h e ld th a t “th e s tatu te re q u ire s n o m in im u m a m o u n t[, b u t] a n y id e n tifiab le a m o u n t, ho w e v e r slig h t, cons t i tut e[ s ] a cr i m e. ” H a m p to n v. S ta te , 4 98 S o. 2 d 384, 386 ( M i s s . 1986) ( not i ng t hat
m aj or i ty of

j ur i s di ct i on s underthe U ni f or m C ontr ol l ed Subs t ance s A cthol d any amount
su ffi cien t) . T h u s, p o sses sion o f a m ere “trace ” a m o u n t of i ll eg al dru g s is su ffi cien t to su p p o rt
a c o n v ic tio n . I

d. ¶15. I n H

am pton , the prosecuti on m etit s bur den of pr ovi ng the def

endant ’ s know i ng pos s es s i on of

a cont r ol l ed subs t ance . T he pol i ce of f i cerw ho pul l ed overH ampt on w i tnes s ed hi m s t agger i ng and ac t i ng di s or i ent ed. T he of f i cerpatt ed H ampt on dow n, as he t es t i f i ed at tr i al , “f orhi s pr ot ect i on, ” and i n doi ng s o, fel ta syr i nge i n H ampt on’ s coat . T he of f i cer s ei zed the s yr i nge, a nd “[ h] e not i ced s om e cl earl i qui d i n [ i t ] , ” w hi ch l at erw as i dent i f i ed as pent azoc i ne ( comm onl y know n a s Tal w i n) , a Sche dul e I I c ontr ol l ed s ubs t ance . T he of f i cer as ked H ampt on i f

he w oul d t ake a br eath t es t , and w i t ho ut aski ng H ampt on any other ques t i ons , H ampt on “smi l ed and m ade a s t at ementt hatt her e w as not hi ng i n t he s yr i nge that [ the St at e] coul d us e aga i ns thi m beca us e he ha d al r eady us ed i tal l . ” H am pton , 498 So. 2d
a t 3 8 5 .

### 10

¶16. H ampt on w as convi ct ed of pos s es s i on of

the “tr ace ” amountof

T al w i n i n the s yr i nge a n d arg u e d o n ap p e a l th a t “th e re w a s a n ins u ffic ien t am o u n t of T a lw in fo u n d in h is pos s es s i on t o c ons t i tut e a c r i m e. ” I d. T h is C o u rtrejected that arg u m en t, n o ti n g that “w e a re n o t co n fin e d to th e T a lw in th a t w a s fo u n d in th e s y rin g e , b e c a u se th a t co u p led w ith H am p ton ’s bo ast w h en h e w as a rrested that h e h ad ‘use d i t all , ’ evid en ce [s] po sses sion o f a gr eat eramount . ” I

d . a t 38 6 . T h u s, H a m p to n ’s c o n v ictio n a n d th is C o u rt’s a ffirm a n c e o f it
w er e bas ed notonl y on the “tr ace ” amountof T al w i n f

ound i n the s yr i nge, butal s o on a d d iti o n a l fa c ts e v in c in g h is a w a re n e ss (“k n o w led g e ” ) o f it s p re se n c e the re a n d h is in ten t to p o ss e ss it. H a m p to n a p p e a re d im p a ire d , the p o lice o ffic e r w h o sto p p e d H a m p to n a c tu a lly not i ced the s m al l amount of l i qui d i n the s yr i nge, a nd H ampt on admi t t ed t o havi ng us ed the
re s t o f i t. I

d. at385- 86. ¶17 . A no th er fa ctual l y si m i l ar cas e, decided b y the C ou rtof A pp eal s, i s N a n c e v. S ta te , 948 So. 2d 459 ( M i s s . Ct . A pp. 2007) . I n thatcas e, N ance w as pul l ed overw hi l e dr i vi ng f or f ai l ur e t o di m hi s headl i ght s t o an oncomi ng cardr i ven by a she r i f f’ s deputy. D ur i ng t he
cou rs e o f the tr af

f i c s t op, N ance w as evas i ve w i th hi s i dent i f i cat i on. E ventual l y, though, N ance pr ovi ded the deputy w i th hi s cor r ectnam e, and t he of f i cerdi s cover ed t hatN ance had
a n o u tsta n d in g w a rra n t fo r h is a rre st. N a n c e w a s a rre ste d o n th e w a rra n t an d tra n sp o rte d to j ai l . A s N ance w as bei ng booked i nt o j ai l , a de t ent i on of f i cerdi s cover ed i n N ance ’ s cl ot hi ng a cornerof

a s andw i ch bag, w hi ch w as t i ed up an d con t ai ned a w hi t e pow dery s ubs t ance . N a n c e sta ted th a t th e b a g w a s a c a n d y w ra p p e r a n d d ire c ted th e o ffic e r to th ro w it aw a y in the tr as h. H ow ever , the of f i cerc ol l ect ed the bag as e vi dence a nd s enti tt o the cr i m e l ab f or te s tin g , w h e re it w a s d e te rm in e d th a t th e b a g c o n ta in e d c o c a in e . I d. at460.

### 11

¶1 8 . N an ce w as co n v ict ed o f p o sses sion o f the c o ca ine, a n d h e arg u ed o n a p p ea l th at “the re w as i ns uf

f i ci entevi dence pr es ent ed t o the j ury t o pr ove thathe know i ngl y pos s es s ed
coca i ne. ” I

d. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls re jec ted th a t ar g u m e n t, ex p lain in g th a t: [ T ] he f act s deduce d attr i al s how ed thatN ance w as i n actual phys i cal pos s ess i on of

the coc ai ne. T he s ubs t ance w as f ound on hi s per s on dur i ng a r out i ne booki ng atthe j ai l hous e. W hil e ther e i s no r equi r ementthatthe def endantbe i n actual phys i cal poss es s i on t o be f ound gui l ty, i n thi s cas e, the pr oof cl ear l y e s t abl i s hed thatN ance phys i cal l y pos s es s ed the bag c ont ai ni ng coca i ne. W hen N ance w as ques t i oned aboutt he bag, he t ol d the of f i certhat the bag w as a ca ndy w r apperand as ked the of f i cert o di s pos e of

the bag i n the garbage. A tno t i m e di d N ance di s cl ai m t he bag, as t o s ugges tthati tdi d not b elon g to h im . In fa ct, h e ide n tif ied th e b ag , falsely, as a c an d y w rap p er. N ance ’ s s t at ement s t o the of f i ceres t abl i s h by deduct i on thathe w as t he ow ner and i n pos s es s i on of

the bag. H e cl ai m ed ow nershi p ov er the bag by gi vi ng p e rm iss io n to th e o ffic e r to d isp o se o f th e b a g c o n tain in g c o c a in e . T h e se a c ts and s t at ement s m ade by N ance , t aken t ogether , ha ve s uf f i ci entw ei ghts o that a r eas onabl e j ury coul d f i nd thatN ance w as i n know i ng pos s es s i on of the coca i ne. N ance , 948 So. 2d at461. T her ef or e, as i n H

am pton , N a n c e ’s c o n v ictio n a n d th e a p p e llate
court ’ s af

f i r m ance of

i tw er e bas ed notonl y on the f actthatthe coc ai ne ac tual l y w as phys i cal l y pr es enton hi s per s on, butal s o on addi t i onal f act s evi nci ng N ance ’ s ow ner s hi p of th e c o c a in e , h is k n o w le d g e o f its p re s e n c e in h is p o c k e t, a n d h is in te n t to p o s s e s s it. I d. T he booki ng off

i ceractual l y found the bag, N ance di d notdi s cl ai m pos s es s i on of i t , and N ance cl ai m ed ow ner s hi p of

the s m al l amount of

coca i ne by i ns truct i ng the of f i cert o di s pos e of

t he b a g . I d. ¶19. P urs uant t o H

am pton , “ a n y ide n tifia b le a m o u n t, h o w e v e r s lig h t, c o n s titu te [s ] a cr i m e. ” H

am pton , 498 So. 2d at386. R egar dl es s of the amount , how ever , the pr os ecut i on i n thi s cas e w as r equi r ed t o pr ove beyond a r eas onabl e doubtthatV i ncentw as a w ar e of the p re se n c e a n d c h a ra c ter o f th e c o c a in e in h is p o c k e ts a n d th a t h e in ten tio n a lly a n d c o n sc io u sly

### 12

p o s s e s s e d it . D i

xon , 9 5 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 1 2 -1 3 ; Sm ith , 839 So. 2d at497. I n otherw or ds , t he pr os ecut i on had t o prove both “know l edge” and “i nt ent , ” i
. e. , th a t V in c e n t kn e w itw a s in h is p o c k e ts , k n e w it w a s c o c a in e , a n d in te n d e d to p o s s e s s it. I d. T h is bu rde n o f pro o f i s m o re di f f i cul tt o meetw hen “tr ace ” amount s a r e i nvol ved, be caus e s uch m i nus cul e amount s can go unnot i ced. B uti ti s noti m pos s i bl e t o pr ove. I n both H am pton and N

ance , the o ffi ce rs themsel ves not i ced the drug. I n H am pton , the def

endantadmi t t ed t o know i ng the drug w as pr es ent , and i n N

ance , the def

endantcl ai m ed ow ner s hi p overthe drug b y i ns truct i ng t he
o ffi ce r t o d ispo se o f i t. T h ere fore , in co n v ict ing H am p ton an d N a n ce o f po sses sion o f a “tr ace ” amountof

drugs , i n addi t i on t o provi ng t hatt he subs t ance w as , i n fa ct , found on the def endant ’ s per s on , the pr os e c ut i on i ntr od uc e d a dd i t i on a l e vi de nc e s uf f i ci entt o es t abl i s h t hat th e d e fe n d a n t h a d b e e n a w a re o f i ts p re s e n c e th e re a n d h a d in te n d e d to p o s s e s s it. ¶20 . T he S t at e did not m eetthis bu rden i n thi s case. A l tho ug h the prosecut i on did est abli sh thatthe coc ai ne w as , i n fa ct , physi cal l y pr es enti n V i ncent ’ s cl othes , thati s notenough. T he St at e s t i l l h a d t o pr ov e tha tVi nc e ntk ne w i twas the r e . Bec a us e the “ tr a c e ” a mountof
coca i ne ul t i m at el y w as f ound i n the cl othes V i ncentw as w ear i ng atthe t i m e of hi s arr es t , t he St at e as s ert s thatthe j ury coul d have i nf err ed thathe kne w i tw as ther e and i nt ent i onal l y had p o s s e s s e d it. B u t th e e v id e n c e a d d u c e d a t tr ia l d o e s n o t s u p p o rt s u c h a n in fe re n c e . ¶21. T he onl y evi dence p res ented at t ri al in t his regar d w as the t es t i m ony of B r andy G oodm an, the f

orensi c ex am i nerw ho di s cover ed the “tr ace ” amountof coca i ne i n tw o of V i ncent ’ s pocket s. G oo dm an t es t i f i ed thata “tr ace ” amounti s an amountthat“[ s he] can p h y sicall y see that there is som ethin g there [ su ch as] po ssibly flak es o r cru m b s. ” H o w ev er, G o o d m a n a lso tes tified th a t a “ tra c e ” a m o u n t is “ a v e ry , v e ry m in u te a m o u n t” a n d “ n o t a

### 13

w e ig h a b le a m o u n t o f su b s ta n c e .” A n d a lth o u g h th e v ials in tro d u c e d in to e v id e n c e still cont ai ned “mostof

w hat[ s he] f

ound” i n V i ncent ’ s cl othes , G oodm an s t at ed t hati tw as “a l ot le s s ” th a n o n e -t e n th o f a g ra m . G o o d m a n c o n c e d e d th a t, “ b e c a u s e it w a s a tr a c e a m o u n t[,]” V in c e n t’ s d e fe n s e c o u n s e l w a s “ h a v in g a te rr ib le tim e s e e in g a n y th in g in th e re .” ¶22. Sever al i nf

er ence s may be dr aw n f r om G oodm an’ s t es t i m on y. B ecause a “t r ace ” amount of

coca i ne w as f

ound i n V i ncent ’ s c l othes , a nd a “ tr ace ” amount i s an amountt hat one “c an phys i cal l y s ee, ” w e m ay i nf erthatthe coc ai ne f

ound i n V i ncent ’ s pocket s coul d be
s een w i th the nake d eye. H ow ever , be caus e the s ame “tr ace ” amount of coca i ne w as “a l ot less” tha n o n e-ten th o f a g ram , “a v ery , v ery m inu te” a m o u n t w h ich is “n o t a w eigh a b le
am o u n t, ” w e m ay infer tha t i t w as e x tr em ely d if fi cu ltto se e. In o ther w o rds, as V ince n t’ s c o u n se l p o in ted o u t an d G o o d m a n c o n c e d e d , a p e rso n c o u ld h a v e “ a ter rib le tim e se e in g ” it. T her ef or e, the f actthatthe coc ai ne could have be en s een does note s t abl i s h thatV i ncentdi d, i n f act , s ee i t . I ti s ent i r el y pos s i bl e thatthe coca i ne f ound i n V i ncent ’ s poc ket s w as vi s i bl e, b u t V in c e n t n e v e r sa w it o r k n e w it w a s th e re . T h a t po ss ib ili ty is ta n tam o u n t to re a so n a b le d o u b t. ¶23. T he evi dence pre s ent ed att r i al str ongl y fa vor s t hi s con cl usi on. V i ncentw as patt ed dow n and se ar ched tw i ce att he sc ene of t he t r af f i c s t op, once by O f

f i cerE s t es and once by L i eutenantT ayl or . Pr es um abl y, he w as s ear ched a gai n atthe j ai l w hen he w as booked. U nl i ke i n H

am pton a nd N

an ce , the of

f i cer s di d notf

i nd any contr aband orcontr ol l ed
s ubs t ance s on V i ncent , and the j ai l of f i ci al s di d notf

i nd any drugs w hen t hey se i zed V i ncent ’ s cl othes . Fur ther , A gent M cW hi r t erdi d notf i nd any drugs i n the cl othes even though he per s onal l y handl ed the cl ot hes w hen he tr ans por t ed them t o the cr i m e l ab. T heA g e n t M c W h irter tes tified th a t V in c e n t h a d sta ted d u rin g q u e stio n in g th a t h is 7 i m pai rm entm ay have r es ul t ed f r om r ece ntexposur e t o pai ntthi nner , and O f f i cerE s t es t es t i f i ed thatdur i ng the tr af

f i c s t op and i m m edi at el y pr i ort o hi s arr es t , V i ncenthad bee n dr i nki ng beer . T he pr os ecut i on of f er ed no evi dence t o contr adi ctthi s t es t i m ony. 

### The di ss ent

as se rt s that

theevi denc e r egarding thebag of drugs on the bac k seat of 8 

### theca r and Vinc ent ’s exc es si ve m ovem ent and reaching int o that are a arecirc ums tanti al evi denc e f

rom whic h an infe re ncecan be drawn that Vinc ent was awar e of

thepre se nceof the cocain e inh is po ckets. B ut V i ncentw as acqui t t ed of pos s es s i on of

the drugs i n the bag o n th e b a c k s e a to f

th e c a r , s o a s f

a ra s th i s Co u r ti s c o n c e rn e d , h e d i d n o t“ p o s s e s s ” t h e m. T hus , V i ncent ’ s al l eged rel at i ons hi p t o the bag of drugs f ound on the bac k s eatof the ca r cannots uppor tan i nf

er ence t hatV i ncentw as aw ar e of the pr es ence of

the “tr ace ” amount of cocaine i n tw o o f hi s pock et s. 

### 14 “tr ace ” amountof

c ocai ne i n V i ncent ’ s poc ket s w as f i r s tdi s cover ed by the f

or ens i c exa m i ner atthe M i s s i s s i ppi Cri m e L ab. A nd unl i ke the def endant s i n H

am pton and N

ance , V i ncent di d notadmi tt o us i ng the drugs orcl ai m o w nershi p of the coc ai ne. I n f

act , V i ncent s peci f i cal l y deni ed any know l edge of any contr ol l ed s ubs t ance s i n t he car . Fi nal l y, the pr os ecut i on i n H

am pton proved H am pton’s i m pairm ent w as caused b y d rug use b ecause H ampt on had admi t t ed t o us i ng the Tal w i n. H er e, al though A gentM cW hi r t ert es t i f i ed that V ince n t app ea red im p aired , the e v iden ce intr o d u ce d at tri al did n o t estab li sh that V ince n t’ s i m pai rm entw as the r es ul tof r ece ntcoca i ne us e. 7 ¶24. B eyond G oodm an’ s t es t i m ony, the pr os ecut i on adduce d no evi dence w hat s oever that V i ncen tk ne w the “ tr a c e ” a mounto f c oc a i ne was i n hi s p oc ke t s . Thus , the St a t e d i d not p ro v e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t V in c e n t w a s “ a w a re ” o f th e c o c a in e ’s p re se n c e in h is p o c k e ts, m u c h les s th a t h e in ten tio n a lly a n d c o n s c io u s ly w a s in p o ss e ss io n o f it, b o th
re q u ir e d e le m e n ts o f t h e c ri m e o f p o s s e s s io n . D i xon , 9 5 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 1 2 -1 3 ; Sm ith , 839 So. 2d at497; B u sh , 895 So. 2d at843. T he evi dence pr es ent ed aga i nstV i ncentr evea l s t hat 8

“ re a so n a b le m e n co u ld n o t ha v e fo u n d b e y o n d a re a so n a b le d o u b t th a t [V in c e n t] w a s g u ilty

### Sin ce Vincent’s conv ictionmust be reversed , we d o n ot ad dress th e pro po rtion ality 9 

### of h is senten ce. 15 . . . . ” D ilw o rth , 909 So. 2d at736 ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed) . Suf f i ce i tt o s ay, no evi dence
w as p u t f

o rth b y the S tat e th a t anyone k n e w th e “ tra c e ” a m o u n t o f c o c a in e w a s p re se n t in V in c e n t’ s p o c k e ts u n til th e fo re n s ic e x a m in e r f o u n d it a t th e c ri m e la b . ¶25. T her ef

or e, the evi dence w as i ns uf f i ci entt o convi ctV i ncentof pos s e s s i on , a nd the tr i al
c o u r te rr e d wh e n i td e n i e d Vi n c e n t ’ s mo t i o n s f o ra d i r e c t e d v e r d i c ta n d f o ra JNOV. I

d. H ence , the pr operr emedy i s f orthi s C our tt o r ever s e and r enderV i ncent ’ s convi ct i on, “ i
. e. re v e rs e a n d d is c h a rg e .” I d. 9 CO NC L US I ON ¶26. B eca us e the St at e di d not pr ove beyond a r eas onabl e doubt that V i ncent H uds on w as aw ar e of the pr es ence and cha r act erof the “tr ace ” amountof

coca i ne i n hi s pocket s , orthat he cons ci ous l y and i nt ent i onal l y pos s es s ed i t , the evi dence putf or th attr i al w as i ns uf

f i ci ent t o supporthi s convi ct i on f orpos s es s i on of

the coc ai ne. T her ef

or e, w e r ever s e the C our tof A ppeal s and r ever s e and r enderH uds on’ s convi ct i on and sent ence and orde rhi m di s char ged. ¶ 2 7 . RE VE RS ED AND RE NDE RE D. C A R LSO N A N D G R A V ES, P. JJ . , D I C K I N SO N , LA M A R A N D K I TC H EN S, J J . , CO NCU R. RAN DO LPH, J . , DI S S ENTS W I TH SEP ARA TE W RI TTEN O P I N I O N JO I N E D B Y C H A N D L E R A N D P I E R C E , JJ. RA ND OL P H, J US T I CE , DI S S E NT I NG : ¶ 2 8 . I w o u ld a ffirm th e d e c isio n s o f a W in s to n C o u n ty ju ry , a W in s to n C o u n ty c irc u it j udge and a unani m ous C our tof A ppeals . T he i ss ues r ai s ed on appe al ar e ( ver bat i m et lite ra tim ):

### 16

(1 ) W h e th e r th e m a n d a to ry se n ten c e o f life im p riso n m e n t w ith o u t p o ss ib ili ty of par ol e f orpos s es s i on of

a tr ace amount of coc ai ne w i thoutcons i der i ng the ext enuat i ng ci r cumst ance s s uch as the pr opor t i onal i ty of the type of

convi ct i on compa r e d t o the a mountof c oc a i ne pe t i t i on e rw a s a c c us e d o f ha vi ng pos s es s i on ther eof

and the f actthatthe pet i t i onerhas neverbeen c onvi ct ed as a drug tr af

f i ckercons t i tut es crue l a ndunus ual puni s hm entpr ohi bi t ed underthe E ig h th A m e n d m e n t; and ( 2) W hetherthe tr i al courterr ed w hen i tf ai l ed t o gr antappel l ant ’ s m ot i on J . N . O . V . or, in t he al t ernat i ve, a new tr i al , w hen the St at e f ai l ed t o pr ove by leg a lly su ffic ien t ev id e n c e b e y o n d a re aso n ab le do u b t al l th e e ssen ti a l ele m e n ts o f k n o w in g a n d fe lo n io u s p o ss e ss io n o f a tra c e a m o u n t o f c o c a in e o n h is cl ot hi ng a nd the j ury r e turne d a ve r di c tof gu i l ty o n the mea ge ra mountof evi dence w her e the s ubs t ance i n ques t i on i s s o s m al l thati tcannotbe s een. T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo u n d n o e rr o r. Hu d so n v. S ta te , 2 00 9 W L 31 11 67 ( M i s s . Ct . A pp. F eb . 1 0 , 2 0 0 9 ). T h e m ajority , in re v ersing a n d ren d ering the p eti ti o n er’s c o n v ict ion , o rde rs th a t th e ju ry v e rd ict m u st b e s e t a sid e , o p in in g th a t th e e v id e n c e w a s in su ffic ien t to c o n v ict,
an d d o es n o t add ress issu e o n e ra ised b y the p eti ti o n er. ( M aj. O p . at ¶8 ). P roport i onal i t y of

Sent ence ¶ 2 9 . T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls fo u n d n o m e ri t in H u d s o n ’s c o n s titu tio n a l a rg u m e n t. I d. at *3. I w oul d a f

f i r m, a s “ thi s Court. . . [ ha s ] r e pe a t e dl y he l d tha twher e a s e nt e nc e i s wi thi n t he p re s c ri b e d s ta tu to ry lim its , it w ill g e n e ra lly b e u p h e ld a n d n o t r e g a rd e d a s c ru e l a n d u n u s u a l.” S tro m a s v . S ta te , 6 1 8 S o . 2 d 1 1 6 , 1 2 3 -2 4 (M iss . 1 9 9 3 ). T h e C o u rt o f A p p e a ls c o rre c tly f ound that“H uds on’ s s ent ence . . . di d notar i s e s ol el y f r om hi s convi ct i on of

pos s es s i on of
coca i ne. H uds on w as s ent ence d t o l i f e w i thoutpar ol e f

orhi s s t atus as a habi tual of f ender
w i th a r ecor d as a vi ol entof f ender . ” Huds on , 2009 W L 311167, at*3. H uds on has f i ve pr evi ous convi ct i ons , t w o of w hi ch, arm ed r obbery and aggr avat ed as s aul tof a l aw enforcem ent of

fi cer, are cri m es of

vi olence. H ud son has spen tm ore than ei gh t een o f hi s l ast

### 17

thi r ty- tw o year s i n the st at e pr i s on s ys t em. I n 1978, H uds on w as convi ct ed s epar at el y of
a g g ra v a ted a ss a u lt o n a law e n fo rc e m e n t o ffic e r in O c to b e r, p o ss e ss io n o f h e ro in in Sept ember , and f

el ony s hopl i f

t i ng i n A pr i l , and w as gi ven pr i s on s ent ence s of one, tw o, and f i ve yea r s by the ci r cui tcourt s of W i ns t on, L auder dal e and J on es C ount i es . H ow ever , he
s erved l es s than thr ee ye ar s . Fr eedom w as s hor t - l i ved, f ori n 1982 H uds on w as convi ct ed of arm ed r obbery i n L auder dal e C ounty and re cei ved a se nt ence of thi r ty year s . H e s erved
m o re tha n fo u rte e n y e a rs o f th a t se n ten c e . H u d so n ’s n e x t co n v ictio n ca m e in 2 0 0 5 in W i ns t on C ount y. H uds on w as convi ct ed of f el ony D U I and r ecei ved a se nt ence of f i ve y e a rs , s e rv in g o n ly o n e y e a r a n d tw o m o n th s . ¶ 3 0 . O u r sta tu te m a n d a tes a se n ten c e o f li fe im p riso n m e n t w ith o u t th e p o ss ib ili ty o f p a ro le f or“[ e] very per s on c onvi ct ed i n thi s s t at e of a f el ony w ho s hal l have be en convi ct ed tw i ce pr evi ous l y of

any f el ony . . . and w ho s hal l have . . . served se par at e t erm s of one ( 1) yearor m o re . . . a n d w h e re a n y o n e (1 ) o f s u c h fe lo n ie s s h a ll h a v e b e e n a c ri m e o f v io le n c e . . . .” M iss. C o d e A n n . § 9 9 -19 -83 (R ev . 2 0 0 7 ). T h is C o u rth as re co g n ized that “itis pro p e rly
w i thi n the purvi ew of

the Legi s l atur e t o det erm i ne the r ange of s ent ence s , enunci at i ng our ci t i zens ' det erm i nat i on of the s oci al i m pactof

harm f ul behavi or . ” D a v is v . S ta te , 724 So. 2d 342, 344 ( M i s s . 1998) . R egar di ng drug of f ens es i n par t i cul ar , t he “the publ i c has expr es s ed g ra v e c o n c e rn [a n d ] . . . [ t] h e le g is la tu re h a s re s p o n d e d in k in d w ith s tif f p e n a ltie s . . . .” S tro m a s v . S ta te , 618 So. 2d 1 16 , 1 23 (M i ss. 1993) . T he w i l l of the peopl e i s expr es s ed thr oug h thei rr epr es ent at i ves . I w oul d notonl y af f i r m the j udgm ent , f

orthe r eas ons s t at ed i nfr a , butal s o the s ent ence , f orours t atut es and casel aw conf i r m thatthe pena l ty i s not g ro s s ly d is p ro p o rt io n a l.

### 18 Suff i ci ency of

E vi dence ¶31. T he bas i s of

my di s s entne ces s ar i l y f ocus es on the evi dence pr es ent ed t o the j ury, and the i ns truct i ons of

l aw gi ven by the tr i al j udge. I r emai n i n acc or d w i th the t i m e- r es pect ed p r i n c i p l e th a ta “ r a t i o n a l t r i e ro f f a c tc o u l d h a v e f

o u n d th e e s s e n t i a l e l e me n t s o f th e c r i me beyond a r eas onabl e doubt . ” D ilw o rth v. S ta te , 909 So. 2d 731, 736 ( M i s s . 2005) ( quot i ng Jacks on v. V

a. , 443 U . S. 307, 319, 99 S. C t . 2781, 2789, 61 L . E d. 2d 560 ( 197 9)) . O ur C our ti s r equi r ed t o vi ew “the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on. ” I d. I ti s notthe f

unct i on of

an appe l l at e courtt o cr eat e orper m i ti nf er ence s thatone orm or e of it s m em b ers m igh t draw fr o m e v iden ce to ru n co n tr ary to the w ell -reaso n ed jud g m en t of a ju ry . See S e e lin gv. S ta te , 844 So. 2d 439, 443 ( M i s s . 2 00 3) (“ [ T ] hi s C our t. . . gi ves t he St at e t he ben efi tof

al l f avor abl e i nf

er ence s thatm ay r eas onabl y be dr aw n f r om t he
e v id e n c e ” ). ¶32. T he arr es t i ng of

f i cer , E s t es , r el at ed t o the j ury hi s obs ervat i on of V i ncent ’ s phys i cal d e m e a n o r a t th e tr a ff

ic s to p . H e te s tif

ied o f V in c e n t’s “ e x tr e m e a n d u n n e c e s s a ry m o v e m e n t.” H e t e s t i f i e d tha tV i nc e nt“ ke ptl oo ki ng ba c k t owar d my po s i t i on a nd a ton e t i me r eac hed back i n the bac k seato f t he car. . . . H e . . . turned al l the w ay ar ound i n the s eatand
rea ch ed b ac k . . . . ” H e fu rth er testi fi ed that a b a g o f d ru g s w a s fo u n d “lay ing o n top o f a
co at i n p lai n v iew . ” E stes rel ated th at “[ t] h e b ac k seat w as fu ll o f j u n k . . . . cloth es, a sp are t i r e, a hea t er. . . . ” ¶33. T he narcot i cs detect i ve, M cW hir t er, t es t i f i ed r egar di ng V i ncent ’ s l ack of m ent al acui ty. “H e s eemed t o m e t o be i m pai r ed. . . . havi ng a hard t i m e tal ki ng. I w as havi ng a har d t i m e under s t andi ng a l otof w hathe w as sayi ng. ” W hen as ked w hy he bel i eved V i ncent

### 19

w as i m pai r ed, M cW hi r t err epl i ed, “The dem eanorthathe w as i n, hi s voi ce, . . . hi s s peec h,
s l urr ed, and I had had c onver s at i ons w i th hi m bef or e thatw er e notthatw ay. ” ¶34. A patdow n of

V i ncentf

ai l ed t o di s cl os e any co ntr oll ed subst ances vis i bl e t o the naked e ye. H ow ever , af t erf i ndi ng evi dence of

drugs i n the ca r , i ncl udi ng m ar i j uana i n the
as h tr ay; m ar i

j uana i n a ci gar ett e pac kage i n H i l l ut e’ s poc ket ; m ar i j uana, ecs t acy a nd coca i ne i n the bag be hi nd the f

r onts eat( the s am e area w her e V i ncentw as obs erved r eac hi ng) , t he p e titio n e r w a s a rr e s te d . ¶3 5 . T h ere w as ev iden ce o f d rug s o ther than the co ca ine in , a s o p p o sed to o n , V ince n t’ s cl othes . C ocai ne w as f ound i ns i de the pocket s of tw o di f f er entgarm ent s thatV i ncentw as w ear i ng. A ddi t i onal l y, m ar i j uana w as found i n one of V i ncent ’ s pocket s . B r andy G oodm an, a f or ens i c s peci al i s t“i n t he f i el d of drug i dent i f

i cat i on, ” w as cal l ed t o t es t i f y. She has been
em p loy ed b y the M issi ssipp i C ri m e L ab o ratory for m o re tha n eigh t yea rs an d h as a p ri m ary duty t o “ana l yze s ubs t ance s subm i t t ed by l aw enf or cementper s onnel f

orthe pr es ence or a b se n c e o f a c o n tro lled su b sta n c e .” S h e h a s a B a c h e lo r o f S c ie n c e d e g re e w ith a m a jo r in
m o lec u lar b io lo g y a n d a m in o r in c h e m ist ry . S h e e a rn e d a m e d ica l-tec h n o lo g y c e rtifica te thro u g h the A m erican S o ciety o f C li n ical P atho log y , an d is certi fi ed b y the A m erican B o ard of Cr i mi na l i s t i c s a s a t e c hn i c a l s pe c i a l i s ti n drug i de nt i f i c a t i on . She was t ender ed as an expertw i tnes s i n the f

i el d of drug anal ys i s w i thoutobj ect i on by t he peti t i oner . G oodm an tes tified th a t sh e h a d u se d a g a s c h ro m a to g ra p h m a ss s p e c tro m e ter a n d h a d ru n a sta n d a rd to
v erify th e resu lt s. W h at sh e fou n d in the p o ck ets w as (1) co ca ine a n d m arij u an a in V ince n t’ s r i ghtf r ontpant s pocket ; (2) cocai ne i n V i ncent ’ s ri ghtshi r tpocket ; (3) a subs t ance f orw hi ch th e d a ta w a s in su ffic ien t to ide n tify in V in c e n t’s lef t fro n t pa n ts p o c k e t an d rig h t b a c k p a n ts

### 20

pocket , “w hi ch means the i ns trum entpi cked up pos s i bl y s om ethi ng ther e, butther e w as not en o u g h scien ti fi c d ata to v erify”; an d (4) n o c o n tro ll ed su b stan ce in V ince n t’ s leftsh irt pocket , l ef

tback pa nt s pocket , and r i ghtfr ontsmal l pant s pocket . G oodm an f ur thert es t i f

i ed that“[ a] tr ace amount i s an amountthatI can phys i cal l y s ee thatther e i s s om ethi ng ther e, but itis no t a w e ig h ab le am o u n t of su b stan ce . ” S h e testi fi ed that, alth o u g h itis co m m o n for a por t i on of

the drugs t o be des tr oyed i n the t es t i ng pr oces s , s he w as abl e t o s ave s om e of the
coca i ne i n vi al s , w hi ch w er e admi t t ed i nt o e vi dence a nd “publ i s hed” t o the j ury. T hus , the j ury had bef

or e i thert es t i m ony and tw o vi al s c ont ai ni ng the r emai nderof the coc ai ne that h a d c o m e fro m V in c e n t’s p a n ts a n d sh irt. ¶36. T he m aj or i ty opi nes that “[ t ] he St at e f ound i t nece s s ary t o ut i l i ze t he ‘con st ruct i ve po sses si on ’ r at i on al e regardi ng the d rugs i n the bag . . . bu tV i ncen tw as acqu i t t ed o f tho se char ges . T hus , thi s appea l does noti nvol ve an i s s ue of ‘ cons truct i ve’ pos s es s i on. ” ( M aj . O p. at¶1 2). T hi s f

i ndi ng i gnor es thatthe j ury r i ght l y ( bas ed on the evi dence ) w as gi ven a c o n stru c tiv e -p o ss e ss io n in stru c tio n , w h ich c o v e re d a ll fo u r c o u n ts w ith o u t d istin c tio n . T h is
s ame i ns truct i on w as pr opos ed by the def endant . I ti ncorpor at ed a def i ni t i on of cons truct i ve po s s e s s i on a s f

ound i n D ix o n v. S ta te , 9 5 3 S o . 2 d 1 1 0 8 , 1 1 1 2 -1 3 (M iss . 2 0 0 7 ). T h e S tate
w i thdr ew i t s pr opos ed poss essi on ins truct i on. T he i ns truct i on gi ven t o the j ury w as as fol l ow s: T he C our ti ns truct s t he j ury thatt o cons t i tut e a pos s es s i on, ther e mustbe s uf f i ci entf act s t o w arr anta f

i ndi ng thatV i ncentH uds on w as aw ar e of the pr es ence and cha r act erof the part i cul ars ubs t ance and w as i nt ent i onal l y and consci ous l y i n pos s es s i on of i t . C ons truct i ve pos s es s i on m ay be s how n by estab li sh ing that the c o n tr o ll ed su b stan ce w as su b ject t o the d efe n d an t’ s d o m in io n a n d c o n tro l. P ro x im ity is u su a lly a n e ss e n tial e lem e n t, bu t b y itse lf i s not adequ at e i n the absence o f other i ncri m i nati ng ci rcum st ances.

### 21

T he maj or i ty’ s di s cl ai m erthatthi s appea l does noti nv ol ve an i s s ue of “cons truct i ve pos s es s i on” does notconf or m t o t he t r i al cour t ’ s i ns truct i on and j ur orcons i der at i on of s ame. I tcannotbe hones t l y debat ed thatV i ncen t ’ s cl othi ng, w hi ch cont ai ned the contr ol l ed
s ubs t ance , w as nots ubj ectt o hi s domi ni on a nd contr ol . T hus , cons truct i ve pos s es s i on w as a n iss u e b e fo re th e trial c o u rt, an d th u s, n e c e ss a rily b e fo re th is C o u rt. ¶37. T he maj or i ty s t at es that , be caus e the St at e r el i ed on cons truct i ve pos s es s i on of the bag of drugs f orw hi ch V i ncentw as acqui t t ed; thus , “as f aras thi s C our ti s conce rned, he di d not

‘ pos s es s ’ [ the drugs ] . ” ( M aj . O p. at¶24, not e 8) . O ne ca n onl y st at e w i th a meas ur e of
cert ai nty thatt he j ury found thatatl eas tone el ementof pos s es s i on of

the drugs i n the bag
w as not pr ov en b y the Stat e bey on d a reasonab l e do ub t . H ow ever, an a cq uitt al on t ho se char ges does notpr ecl ude cons i der at i on of the pr es ence of

al l drugs , g i ven the t ot al i ty of ci r cumst ance s s urr oundi ng hi s arr es tand, s peci f i cal l y, f orthe undi s put ed evi dence thatdrugs w ere det erm i ned t o b e on hi s person. T he b ag o f drug s w as pres ented as evi den ce. Itm ust be vi ew ed i n l i ke manneras any otherevi dence pr es ent ed, w i th the j ury ent i t l ed t o gi ve s uch
w e ig h t to a ll e v id e n c e a s o n ly th e y d e e m a p p ro p ri a te , b e it g re a t o r o f n o s ig n if ic a n c e . See D ilw o rth , 9 0 9 S o . 2 d a t 7 3 6 . W e a re w ith o u t th e c o n stitu tio n a l o r sta tu to ry a u th o rity to di s r egar d pr oper l y a dm i t t ed evi dence , no m att erhow s l i ghtw e dee m i t s evi dent i ary val ue. T he maj or i ty s t at es that“cons ci ous i nt entt o pos s es s ” i s a nec es s ary el ement . ( M aj . O p. at ¶11) . H ow ever , i nt entcannotbe s een. I tm us tbe i nfe rr ed, m aki ng i ta cl as s i c j ury i s s ue. T he j ury had eve r y r i ghtt o i nf er , bas ed on t he t otal i ty of ci r cumst ance s , thatV i ncenthad “cons ci ous l y exer ci s ed contr ol ove r ” the drugs s ci ent i f i cal l y det erm i ned ( w i thoutobj ect i on) to b e in h is p o c k e ts . See D i xon , 9 5 3 S o . 2 d a t 1 1 1 3 .

### 22

¶38. T he m aj or i ty ci t es tw o cas es i n w hi ch the pr os ecut i on s at i s f i ed i t s bur den of

pr ovi ng p o s s e s s io n o f a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . See H a m p to n v. S ta te , 49 8 S o . 2 d 3 8 4 (M iss. 1 9 8 6 ); N a n ce v . S ta te , 948 S o. 2d 459 ( M i s s . C t . A pp. 2007) . I n H am pton , the arr es t i ng of

f i cer te s tif ie d th a t H a m p to n w a s im p a ir e d , ju s t a s th e n a rc o tic s o ff ic e r d id h e r e . H

am pton , 498 So. 2d at385. N o drugs w er e i dent i f i ed on H am pton at t he t i m e of arr es t , buta s yr i nge cont ai ni ng “ s om e cl earl i qui d” w as f ound upon a nal ys i s a tthe cr i m e l ab t o c ont ai n a t r ace a m o u n t o f a c o n tr o lle d s u b s ta n c e . I d. T h e d rug am o u n t w as so sm all that n o thing w as left
o v e r a ft e r t h e a n a ly s is . I d. H er e, t he j ury w as pre s ent ed w i th m or e. V i al s of tr ace coca i ne w er e of f er ed i nt o evi dence and publ i s hed t o the j ury, unl i ke i n H am pton . ¶ 3 9 . N ance w a s n o t a tr a c e -e v id e n c e c a s e . N ance , 9 4 8 S o . 2 d at 46 0 . A w h it e p o w d ery s u b s ta n c e w a s fo u n d in a s a n d w ic h b a g a t th e p o lic e s ta tio n . I d. N a nc e ’ s c on vi c t i on w as affirm ed w ith o u t evid en ce o f i m p airm en t as i n this case . H o w e v er, al l th ree ca ses o ffer a
comm on t hr ead, i . e. , an obj ect(s yr i nge, sandw i ch bag, pocket s of cl othi ng) w as det erm i ned b y lab a n alys is t o h o ld a s m all am o u n t of a c o n tr o ll ed su b stan ce . N an ce ’s an d H am p ton ’s
c o n v ic tio n s w e re a ff

ir m e d . See H

am pton , 4 9 8 S o . 2 d a t 3 8 7 ; N ance , 948 So. 2d at461. A ccor di ngl y, thos e ca s es pr ovi de no pr ece dent i al s uppor tt o re ver s e pet i t i oner ’ s convi ct i on. ¶40 . T he S t at e sum m ed u p the proof as f oll ow s: I f you f ound tr a c e a mount s of

c oc a i ne i n c l othe s , i s tha te no ug h t o c on vi ct s om ebody? N o. B utyou f i nd t r ace am ount s of coc ai ne i n s om ebody’ s cl othes and you f

ound thatper s on w as al s o r i ghtby a bunch of otherdrugs and t he s ame ki nd of

drugs , and you f

i nd thatt he of

f i cers aw the per s on puts om ethi ng i n t he a r e a wher e h e p uttho s e d rug s ; y ou f i nd tha tthe p e r s on a l s o ha s t r ace amount s , thathe w as m ovi ng around, thathe w as act i ng l i ke he w as in to x ica ted , an d y o u p u t all th o se th in g s to g e th e r. Y o u h a v e g o t th e w h o le pi ctur e, and then thati s enough t o make a r eas onabl e i nf er ence and l ook atthe t ot al i ty of

the ci r cumst ance s and t o f i nd hi m gui l ty.

### 23

T h is w a s a fa ir su m m a ry o f th e fa c ts p re se n ted to th e ju ry . T h e a rg u m e n t w a s c o u c h e d to
m a t c h the i ns truc t i on o f f e r e d. Thus , the j ury’ s u l t i mat e c on c l us i on tha tHuds on had p o ss e ss e d d ru g s b y h a v in g th e m in h is d o m in io n an d co n tro l w a s su p p o rte d , b o th fa c tu a lly and l egal l y. ¶4 1. I n r evi ew i ng a deci s i on t o deny a mot i on f ordi r ect ed ver di ctor j udgm ent notw i ths t andi ng the ver di ct , i ti s notenough thatw e mi ghthave ha d a r eas onabl e doubt , but “w hether , af

t ervi ew i ng the evi dence i n the l i ghtm os tf avor abl e t o the pr os ecut i on, any ra tio n a l trier o f f

a c t c o u ld h a v e fo u n d th e e ss e n tial e lem e n ts o f th e c rim e b e y o n d a re a so n a b le doubt . ” D ilw o rth , 90 9 So . 2d a t73 6. A pp l yi ng thi s s t a nd a r d, I w ou l d a f f i r m, a nd not s ubs t i tut e m y t ake on the evi dence ( orr egr ett abl y, di s r egar d e vi dence ) t o over rul e t he deci s i on of

a cons t i tut i onal l y appoi nt ed f i nderof f act , the j ury. CHANDL ER AND P I ER CE , J J . , J OI N T HI S OP I NI ON.

### 24