Opinion ID: 1918462
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: the verdict of the jury was unsupported by and contrary to the evidence, and the court should have granted naylor's peremptory instruction and motions for directed verdict.

Text: ¶ 24. Naylor argues that the trial court erred in not granting him a directed verdict or a peremptory instruction. A motion for directed verdict challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence offered to that point of the trial to sustain a guilty verdict. Following the denial of his motion for a directed verdict, Naylor offered evidence in his defense, when his attorney called his aunt, Vicki Griffin, to testify. As a result, Naylor has waived his challenge to the sufficiency of the State's evidence. Stringer v. State, 557 So.2d 796, 797 (Miss.1990). ¶ 25. However, as this Court stated in Stringer, Naylor `... has [not] waived his right to challenge the weight or sufficiency of the evidence to sustain the judgment against him.' Stringer v. State, 557 So.2d at 797 (quoting Clements v. Young, 481 So.2d 263, 268 (Miss.1985)). Therefore, this Court considers all of the evidence offered in determining its sufficiency. When on appeal one convicted of a criminal offense challenges the legal sufficiency of the evidence, our authority to interfere with the jury's verdict is quite limited. We proceed by considering all of the evidencenot just that supporting the case for the prosecutionin the light most consistent with the verdict. We give prosecution the benefit of all favorable inferences that may reasonably be drawn from the evidence. If the facts and inferences so considered point in favor of the accused with sufficient force that reasonable men could not have found beyond a reasonable doubt that he was guilty, reversal and discharge are required. On the other hand, if there is in the record substantial evidence of such quality and weight that, having in mind the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof standard, reasonable and fair-minded jurors in the exercise of impartial judgment might have reached different conclusions, the verdict of guilty is thus placed beyond our authority to disturb. McFee v. State, 511 So.2d 130, 133-34 (Miss.1987)(citing Gavin v. State, 473 So.2d 952, 956 (Miss.1985); May v. State, 460 So.2d 778, 781 (Miss.1984)). ¶ 26. The issues to be decided by this Court are whether the State proved that Naylor had possession of the cocaine and if so whether he had the intent to distribute it. The threshold issue is the question of possession. Naylor contends that the State did not prove that he was either in actual or constructive possession of the cocaine beyond a reasonable doubt. ¶ 27. Because Naylor was not caught in actual possession of the cocaine, but was only located in the bathroom next to Jones who had actual possession, the State was required to prove that Naylor had constructive possession. In Jones v. State, 693 So.2d 375, 376 (Miss.1997), this Court discussed the theory of constructive possession stating that: Since Jones was not caught in actual possession, the rules concerning constructive possession come into play, as stated by this Court in Pool v. State, 483 So.2d 331, 336-37 (Miss.1986); The theory of constructive possession has been explained, in Curry v. State, 249 So.2d 414 (Miss.1971), as follows: [T]here 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. It need not be actual physical possession. Constructive possession may be shown by establishing that the drug involved was subject due to his dominion or control. Proximity is usually an essential element, but by itself is not adequate in the absence of other incriminating circumstances. Id. at 416. The theory was further defined in Hamburg v. State, 248 So.2d 430 (Miss.1971), that one who is the owner in possession of the premises ... is presumed to be in constructive possession of the articles found in or on the property possessed. Id. at 432. This presumption is rebuttable, however, and does not relieve the State of its burden to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. Thus, [w]here the premises upon which contraband is found is not in the exclusive possession of the accused, the accused is entitled to acquittal, absent some competent evidence connecting him with the contraband. Powell v. State, 355 So.2d 1378, 1379 (Miss.1978). See also Keys v. State, 478 So.2d 266, 268 (Miss.1985). ¶ 28. In Jones, supra, this Court found that the evidence of constructive possession was insufficient where Jones was a passenger in a car in which marijuana was found. This Court found that his presence in the car was the only evidence connecting him to the marijuana. Therefore, the Court reversed and rendered his conviction because the trial court erred in not granting Jones's motion for a directed verdict. Id. at 377. ¶ 29. In Berry v. State, 652 So.2d 745, 751 (Miss.1995), this Court reversed and rendered Berry's conviction for possession of cocaine where the only evidence connecting him to the cocaine was that he rode in the car in which the cocaine was located and placed the cocaine in the glove compartment at the request of the driver of the car. This Court found the facts insufficient to prove that Berry had exercised any control over the drugs such that he was in constructive possession of them. ¶ 30. In Ferrell v. State, 649 So.2d 831 (Miss.1995), this Court again reversed and rendered a conviction for possession of crack cocaine where the State provided insufficient evidence that Ferrell, who was not the owner of the car in which the drugs were found, possessed the contraband. The Court noted that Ferrell did have dominion and control over the car, but that because he was not the owner of the car, the State was required to establish additional incriminating circumstances in order to prove constructive possession. Ferrell, 649 So.2d at 835. Further, the Court stated: By definition, the State must show additional circumstances that are actually incriminating in order to establish constructive possession. The circumstances cited in this case in no way appear incriminating. No drug paraphernalia was found in the car, Ferrell was not on drugs at the time he was arrested, and his fingerprints were not found on the matchbox. He was merely seated in the car next to what by all accounts appeared to be an ordinary matchbox ... Id. ¶ 31. This Court again confronted the issue of constructive possession in Miller v. State, 634 So.2d 127 (Miss.1994). In that case, the Court found the evidence sufficient to convict Miller of possession of cocaine. The facts showed that Miller was arrested by a patrol officer on two outstanding warrants. Upon doing a pat-down for weapons, the officer handcuffed Miller and placed him in the patrol car. The officer had felt no weapons but had felt what he thought was a matchbox, some keys, and some coins. At the police station, Miller was searched, and the officer found no matchbox. He returned to his patrol car, and found under the seat a matchbox containing twelve rocks of crack cocaine. Id. at 128. The arresting officer testified that standard operating procedure required him to search his patrol car when he came on duty. He had also searched his car after he had taken the one other arrestee of the day into custody prior to Miller. He testified that his patrol car was locked while he took Miller into the station. This Court found that the proof, as established primarily by the arresting officer's testimony, was sufficient because the proof showed that Miller was the only person who had recently been in the area where the drugs were found and who had the opportunity to leave them there. Id. at 130. ¶ 32. In the case sub judice, the only evidence linking Naylor to the cocaine is that he was in close proximity to it when he was found in the bathroom. The State did not prove that he lived at the house where the drugs were found, therefore the State was required to provide some competent evidence that connected Naylor to the cocaine. The only other evidence admitted against Naylor was that his wallet was found in a closet which contained his identification, and he was in possession of $748.00 in cash. Under Mississippi law, this evidence was insufficient to prove that Naylor possessed cocaine. If Naylor did not have constructive possession of the cocaine, then he could not have had the intent to distribute the cocaine. Therefore, we must reverse and render this case and Naylor must be discharged. ¶ 33. All remaining issues presented for our review are moot and will not be discussed.