Case Name: STATE of Louisiana v. George Henry ALFORD and Gayle Baker a/k/a Gayle Alford
Court: Louisiana Supreme Court
Jurisdiction: Louisiana
Decision Date: 1975-12-08
Citations: 323 So. 2d 788
Docket Number: No. 56226
Parties: STATE of Louisiana v. George Henry ALFORD and Gayle Baker a/k/a Gayle Alford.
Judges: SANDERS, C. J., and MARCUS, J., dissent.
Reporter: Southern Reporter, Second Series
Volume: 323
Pages: 788–793

Head Matter:
STATE of Louisiana v. George Henry ALFORD and Gayle Baker a/k/a Gayle Alford.
No. 56226.
Supreme Court of Louisiana.
Dec. 8, 1975.
Dissenting Opinion Dec. 19, 1975.
Joseph D. Guerriero, Monroe, for defendant-relator.
William J. Guste, Jr., Atty. Gen., Barbara B. Rutledge, Asst. Atty. Gen., J. Carl Parkerson, Dist. Atty., Brian E. Crawford, Asst. Dist. Atty., for plaintiffs-respondents.

Opinion:
CALOGERO, Justice.
Defendants George Henry Alford and Gayle Baker were charged in a bill of information with possession of marijuana, a violation of La.R.S. 40:966. On April 1, 1975, they were tried by a judge and found guilty. George Alford was sentenced to pay a fine of $300 and court costs and to serve thirty days in jail, or, in default of the payment of the fine, to serve an additional sixty days. Gayle Baker was sentenced to pay a fine of $150 and costs, or in default, thirty days. We granted certio-rari to review the correctness of the trial judge's denial of defendants' motion for a directed verdict. We now reverse.
In the early morning hours of January 8, 1975, members of the Ouachita-Morehouse Narcotics Strike Force raided a home in West Monroe to execute a previously-issued search warrant. Named in the warrant was Charles Morgan, who rented and occupied the house in question. The oath in support of the search warrant recited that an informant had made a purchase of the illegal substance from Mr. Morgan at his house. Neither the search warrant nor the affidavit mentioned either of the defendants herein. The officer who conducted the search, Detective Pickens, testified that he had never heard of these two defendants before the search. When the officers arrived at the house, it was unoccupied. The search commenced and a small amount of marijuana was found hidden in several locations throughout the house. Also two prescription bottles, in the names of "Gayle Alford" and George Alford, respectively, were found in one of several cardboard boxes in a kitchen closet. No illegal drugs were found in the bottles.
After the search was completed, officers heard a car pull into and out of the driveway. They pursued the car but were not able to stop it until it was three-fourths of a mile from the house, because, as Detective Bougere testified,
"We had some difficulty. We had to move some [police] cars out of the way so we could pursue it in a marked unit where we could stop the vehicle."
He testified that he had no difficulty apprehending the vehicle and that when he arrested the two defendants who were in the car that they were "very cooperative." They volunteered, he said, that they had been staying at the Morgan home "for approximately three weeks and that was all, no more than three weeks." The defendants and their vehicle were searched.
It is undisputed that no marijuana was found on the persons of the two defendants or in their car. No evidence was introduced to prove that any of the belongings in the house were owned by defendants. They were not at the house at the time it was searched. They were not arrested at the house. They were not seen in the house at any time by any witness. The state did not attempt to prove that they knew, or were in any way associated with Charles Morgan, who rented the house. Only two scraps of evidence were even introduced to link defendants to the house: the two prescription bottles which bore the names of Gayle and George Alford, respectively; and the uncorroborated statement by a policeman that defendants had volunteered that they had lived in the Morgan home for an undesignated three-week period.
The plastic bags containing the microscopic gleanings produced by the search were so well hidden in the house that their presence probably would not have been known to a continuous resident of the house, much less a temporary guest. The marijuana gleanings (along with cigarette papers, pipes, and other smoking paraphernalia) were in these locations: in a sealed coffee can on top of the refrigerator in the kitchen; in an aspirin bottle and bags in a closed metal file box which was on the top of a chest of drawers in a bedroom closet; in a pipe found in the kitchen in a cardboard box which was piled beside several other cardboard boxes. A "larger" amount of marijuana, weighing nine grams (approximately one-third of an ounce), was found in a plastic sack on a shelf of a serving tray inside a kitchen cabinet under the sink.
The state contends that it had presented evidence of constructive possession, making proper the judge's denial of defendants' motion for a directed verdict.
Under our law, an individual need not personally possess a drug to violate a law against its illegal possession, because constructive possession is sufficient. But for a person to constructively possess a drug it must be subject to his dominion and control, and he must have knowledge of its existence. If the state has presented some evidence of these elements, then this Court will not reverse a trial court's denial of defendants' motion for a directed verdict. State v. Ford, 315 So.2d 276 (La.1975); State v. Douglas, 278 So.2d 485 (La.1973).
In our recent unanimous opinion in State v. Cann, 319 So.2d 396 (La.1975), we reversed a defendant's conviction for constructive possession of marijuana in a similar case. Defendant Cann was in the apartment of another person when police came to execute a search warrant. The officers found six bags of marijuana in plain view and a pound of marijuana and eight bags in a box in the kitchen, as well as gleanings in the garbage outside the apartment. However, no marijuana was found on the person of the defendant or in the bedroom where he was found. This Court held that defendant did not constructively possess the marijuana which was in the apartment because "the mere presence of someone in the area where the controlled dangerous substance is found, or the mere fact that someone knows the person who is in actual possession of the controlled dangerous substance is insufficient to constitute constructive possession by that person." 319 So.2d at 397. Again, we stated that "[i]n order to convict a person on the • basis of constructive possession, something more than mere presence in the area where the drug is found or mere association with the person in actual custody of the drug must be shown." 319 So.2d at 397-98. In that opinion, this Court reviewed federal and state jurisprudence in this area to determine what facts have been found to support findings of constructive possession.
In the case before us now, the state presented evidence tending to prove that 1) less than an ounce of marijuana was found in a house rented by someone other than defendants; 2) that defendants had stayed in the house for several weeks; and 3) that defendants drove into the driveway of the-house, pulled out, and continued down the street.
However, the state offered no evidence of the following: 1) that these defendants knew or had reason to know there was marijuana in the house; 2) that these defendants knew or were associated with Charles Morgan, who rented the house; 3) that defendants had been in the home on the morning of or the day preceeding the search; 4) that anyone other than Charles Morgan had access to the home and its contents; 5) that any drugs were found on the persons of these defendants, in their automobile, in the suitcases in the bedroom (assuming what is unproven, that those suitcases belonged to defendants), or in the two prescription bottles bearing the names Gayle and George Alford, respectively; 6) that these defendants in any way had any control over the marijuana that was found in the apartment.
We find that the state presented no evidence that either defendant had or shared dominion or control of the marijuana found in the house which would constitute their constructive possession of the illegal drug. The motion for a directed verdict should have been granted.
For the reasons assigned, the convictions and sentences of these two defendants are reversed and set aside, and the case is remanded to the trial court for proceedings consistent with this opinion.
SANDERS, C. J., and MARCUS, J., dissent.
SUMMERS, J., dissents and will assign reasons,
. There was some conflict in the evidence as to whether any marijuana was found in the cardboard box in which the prescription bottles were found but, looking at the evidence in the manner most helpful to the state, four smoking pipes were found in the same box. Only one of the pipes contained marijuana, and it contained, according to the state's expert, "not over two hundred milligrams" of marijuana, an amount which was "microscopic in nature."
. It might be noted that in brief defendants contend that, as part of their case, they took the stand to say that they had never lived at the Morgan home and had never said that they had lived there. For purposes of consideration of the motion for a directed verdict, however, we must accept as true all of the state's evidence including the police officer's testimony that defendants admitted living in the house.