Opinion ID: 1858972
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: was there sufficient evidence to convict on the matter of possession?

Text: Like the question of intent, the finding that Boyd was in possession of cocaine is based first on the testimony of Officer Carter. He testified that Boyd put something in his pocket and later threw something across the bedroom. Another officer found two rocks of crack cocaine in the area where Carter saw Boyd make the toss. In this appeal, Boyd contends that Carter's testimony is inherently incredible and should not be believed. This Court has stated however, that it is the jury that is the sole judge of the weight and credibility of witnesses. Jackson v. State, 580 So.2d 1217, 1221 (Miss. 1991), Dixon v. State, 519 So.2d 1226, 1228 (Miss. 1988). One of the cases Boyd relies upon is the case of Hicks v. State, 580 So.2d 1302 (Miss. 1991). Hicks clearly stands for the proposition that actual possession of drugs can be established by testimony from an officer that he observed the defendant tossing an object which was subsequently located at the same site and, upon examination of the object, it was determined to be a controlled substance. In that case, Hicks threw down a film canister containing narcotics and a police officer witnessed the act. Hicks' request for a constructive possession instruction was refused by the trial court which stated, [T]here is clear evidence establishing actual possession by Hicks from the testimony of the detective, who actually saw Hicks with the canister. Id. at 1306. Another case factually similar to the case at bar is Givens v. State, 618 So.2d 1313 (Miss. 1993). In Givens, the police officer on the scene in the street testified that he observed Mr. Givens throw a bag down to the surface, to the ground. He identified the bag containing the cocaine as the item that I saw Mr. Givens throw to the ground. Id. at 1319. This Court stated that there remains direct evidence placing the controlled substance within the physical possession of Givens  the testimony of Officer Leonard. Id. at 1319. Boyd's conduct during the entire time was consistent with possessing and being caught in the act of selling drugs. Both Hicks and Givens support the legal proposition that, according to the facts of this case, Boyd was in actual possession of cocaine. There was sufficient evidence presented to the jury to establish actual possession of cocaine and the totality of the facts at the scene were sufficient to allow the jury to find that Boyd intended to distribute cocaine. The defense tried to make much of that fact that the bedroom where the drugs were found was regularly occupied by a routine user of cocaine who died before trial. Boyd argues that when the premises where the drugs or contraband are found are not in the exclusive possession or control of the accused, additional evidence must connect the accused with the contraband, citing Clayton v. State, 582 So.2d 1019, 1021 (Miss. 1991); Sisk v. State, 290 So.2d 608 (Miss. 1974). Boyd is correct in this argument. However, in the case sub judice, additional connecting evidence was given which takes this case out from under this rule. Boyd was seen by Officer Carter attempting to get rid of the cocaine which was found by Officer Tharpe. No evidence was offered that the occupant of the room had recently been there or that he was in the habit of keeping his cocaine on the bedroom floor. The cocaine was found by the backup officer, detective Steven Tharpe, exactly where Officer Carter had stated he had seen Boyd toss something. The jury was given all the evidence from both sides and made its decision. There was sufficient evidence which supported their decision. This assignment of error has no merit.