Opinion ID: 1782331
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Inference of Participation In Processing Substance

Text: ¶ 16. Additionally, discovery of the defendant in close proximity to paraphernalia used to process the drug for use or distribution has also been found to be sufficient incriminating evidence. See Kerns v. State, 923 So.2d 196 (Miss.2005) (finding constructive possession when the defendant was found at an operating methamphetamine laboratory which smelled strongly of ether, was surrounded by materials for processing the substance for recreational use and a handgun, and was next to foil and filters, both of which tested positive for the substance); Fox v. State, 756 So.2d 753, 758 (2000) (finding constructive possession when the defendant was found with a pair of scissors in his hand while standing near containers with freshly cut marijuana in his mother's house and with no one else in the house was shown to have had a substantial connection to it or control of it). ¶ 17. The facts connecting Dixon to the thirteen and a half grams of cocaine Ford actually possessed were that: (1) Dixon was a passenger in the car Ford was driving when the police stopped the car and (2) the state's witness identified Ford as being in actual possession of the substance which Dixon allegedly constructively possessed. With regard to Dixon, neither of the three types of additional incriminating evidence are present in the Court of Appeal's decision. The facts concerning Dixon are similar to those in Jones v. State, 693 So.2d 375, 377 (Miss.1997), where this Court reversed the possession conviction, finding no constructive possession when the only evidence connecting the defendant to the controlled substance was his presence in the car where the substance was found. In this case, there is nothing to connect Dixon to the cocaine Ford had except Dixon's presence in the car with Ford. That fact contributes to a showing of physical proximity, but presence alone is insufficient to establish constructive possession. ¶ 18. Each of the decisions affirming a possession conviction based on the constructive possession doctrine contained evidence in addition to physical proximity linking the defendant to the substance. The extent of the Court of Appeal's analysis and conclusion were: Looking to the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that there is sufficient evidence to support the jury's verdict that Ford and Dixon were in constructive possession of the entire twenty grams of cocaine in question. It is clear from the evidence presented that both defendants were aware of the presence and character of the cocaine while in the car together, and that Ford and Dixon were intentionally in possession of the cocaine. While neither party had actual, physical possession of the entire twenty grams, the facts of this case suggest that Ford and Dixon intended to possess the entire amount in order to distribute it. Dixon v. State, ___ So.2d at ____, 2006 Miss.App. LEXIS at . Beside the defendants being in the car when the police officer first attempted to stop them, establishing their association as driver and passenger, no additional evidence of constructive possession was cited by the Court of Appeals. Nothing in the Court of Appeals opinion suggested that Ford and Dixon had joint dominion or control over the total twenty grams between them. ¶ 19. On the contrary, with regard to joint control of the cocaine, the evidence leaves reasonable doubt that such a relationship existed, suggesting, instead, that each defendant was handling his cocaine for distribution separately. Dixon physically possessed seventy-five small rocks of cocaine in an aspirin bottle worth about $20 each, totaling six and a half grams in weight, while Ford had thirteen or fourteen individually wrapped, larger rocks worth about $100 grams, weighing a total of thirteen and a half grams. The difference in denomination, weight, and size of drugs in possession of each defendant raises the possibility that each was handling his drugs independently of the other. The facts simply do not rise to the level of establishing dominion and control or creating an inference of constructive possession. ¶ 20. It would be inconsistent with this Court's application of the doctrine of constructive possession to find constructive possession in this case where the two defendants fled from a car in separate directions with different amounts of cocaine, denominated differently.