Opinion ID: 1711589
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: whether the state proved constructive possession of controlled substances.

Text: ¶ 7. Alexander argues that since traces of controlled substances were not found on his person, there is insufficient evidence to warrant a finding of constructive possession. Alexander also points out that many people had access to the wrecked truck since bystanders surrounded the wreck immediately following the accident; the accident scene was not immediately secured; and a period of approximately five hours elapsed from the time of the wreck until Hill discovered the contraband in the truck. Critically, Alexander alleges that there was no evidence establishing that the shirt containing the drugs belonged to him. Because he lacked control of the premises and actual possession of the drugs, Alexander argues that the State failed to produce evidence connecting him to the methamphetamine or cocaine. ¶ 8. The State, on the other hand, argues that Alexander's statement to Hill that, ... there is something in a box. I don't really want nobody to see it. You know, don't nobody need to see it amounts to an admission against interest sufficient to connect Alexander with the drugs. ¶ 9. For authority on the issue of possession, Alexander submits that the case sub judice is consistent with Powell v. State, 355 So.2d 1378, 1379 (Miss.1978), where we held that [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. We have reiterated our position on this issue by requiring that: There must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that the 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 to his dominion or control. Pate v. State, 557 So.2d 1183, 1184 (Miss. 1990) (quoting Guilbeau v. State, 502 So.2d 639, 641 (Miss.1987) (quoting Curry v. State, 249 So.2d 414, 416 (Miss.1971))). ¶ 10. In Jackson v. State, 689 So.2d 760 (Miss.1997), we found that there was sufficient evidence for inferring that a criminal defendant was aware of the presence and character of cocaine found in a car he was driving while on a trip to New Orleans on behalf of his employer. We stated that: To prove constructive possession, the State must have provided evidence that the contraband was under the dominion and control of the defendant. Roberson v. State, 595 So.2d 1310, 1319 (Miss. 1992). Where the defendant is not in control of the premises, that is, the car, the State has the burden of proving competent evidence which would connect the defendant to the cocaine. Campbell v. State, 566 So.2d 475, 476 (Miss.1990). Jackson, 689 So.2d at 767. Alexander was not in exclusive dominion and control of the wrecked truck when the drugs were found. A period of approximately five hours elapsed between the time of the wreck and the discovery of the drugs; consequently, following Powell and Pate, the facts in this case are insufficient, by themselves, to prove constructive possession. ¶ 11. Since Alexander was not in exclusive dominion and control of the truck when the drugs were found, Jackson places the burden upon the State to provide competent evidence which would connect Alexander with the cocaine and methamphetamine residue. The State offered Alexander's statement to Ray Hill, that there was something in a box, presumably as an admission for sustaining this evidentiary burden. An admission is an acknowledgment by the accused of certain facts which tend, together with other facts, to establish his guilt. Jackson v. State, 551 So.2d 132, 138 (Miss.1989)(quoting 4 Wharton's Criminal Evidence, § 651 at 218 (14th ed.1987)). ¶ 12. The jury was given a constructive possession instruction based on this statement alone. Whether subsequent discovery of drug residue suffices for establishing a foundation of other facts for an admission is a seriously diminished proposition when considering the five-hour lapse of the truck being unsecured. Such a statement, by itself, goes beyond the outer limits of instances where a constructive possession instruction is proper. ¶ 13. The statement by Alexander was relevant to the case. However, the State failed to establish that Alexander owned the shirt or coin purse containing the contraband. Therefore, no evidence was introduced linking the statement to the physical evidence. This defect renders this cause reversible.