Opinion ID: 1738673
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: the verdict of the trial jury is contrary to established principles of law and against the overwhelming weight of the evidence elicited at the trial.

Text: ¶ 6. When reviewing a claim that a jury verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, we have stated: In determining whether a jury verdict is against the overwhelming weight of the evidence, this Court must accept as true the evidence which supports the verdict and will reverse only when convinced that the circuit has abused its discretion in failing to grant a new trial. Only when the verdict is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice will this Court disturb it on appeal. Thus, the scope of review on this issue is limited in that all evidence must be construed in the light most favorable to the verdict. (internal citations omitted.) Herring v. State, 691 So.2d 948, 957 (Miss. 1997). ¶ 7. Martin argues that the evidence offered in this case does not support a finding of possession in this case. Martin concedes that the State need not prove actual physical possession, but argues that the State failed in its burden of proving constructive possession. We have recently articulated the constructive possession rule as follows: [T]here must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that defendant was aware of the presence of the particular substance and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it. It need not be actual or physical possession. Constructive possession may be shown by establishing that the drug involved was subject to his dominion or control. Proximity is usually an essential element, but by itself is not adequate in the absence of other incriminating circumstances. Hamm v. State, 735 So.2d 1025, 1028 (Miss.1999)(quoting Curry v. State, 249 So.2d 414, 416 (Miss.1971)). In Jones v. State, 693 So.2d 375, 377 (Miss.1997), we applied this rule to reverse a marijuana conviction where the defendant was a passenger in a car where the drugs were found, and where there was no other evidence connecting him to the drugs. Likewise, in Naylor v. State, 730 So.2d 561, 566 (Miss.1998), we reversed a conviction for possession of cocaine where the defendant was found in a bathroom along with another suspect who was trying to flush the cocaine down the toilet to prevent its seizure by police. ¶ 8. In affirming the conviction of Martin's co-defendant Darrin Fox, we held that the State had provided sufficient evidence to allow a reasonable jury to conclude that Fox was in constructive possession of the marijuana, stating: [T]he fact that Fox had a pair of scissors in his hand while standing near containers with freshly cut marijuana in a house owned by his mother and with no one else in the house shown to have had a substantial connection to it or control of it, shows Fox had constructive possession. Fox, 756 So.2d at 758. ¶ 9. Unlike Fox, Martin was not holding any scissors or anything else which directly tied him to the marijuana, and the house was owned by Fox's mother, rather than anyone with a connection to Martin. Furthermore, none of the prosecution testimony indicates that Martin exercised actual or constructive dominion over the marijuana. For example, the cross-examination of Detective Richard Nations reflects the following exchange: Q. And the other one [Martin] had a bowl or something in his hand; is that right? A. I didn't say it was in his hand. I said he was standing over it. Q. Okay. So he was standing over a bowl? A. Yes, sir. ¶ 10. The State elicited the following testimony on redirect: Q. Okay. And what was it that you personally observed the defendant Felton Martin doing in reference to the material? A. He looked like he was trying to Felton Martin looked like he was trying to grab the bowl, but when I entered the room he didn'tlike I said, he looked confused and like he didn't know what to do. ¶ 11. The cross-examination of Detective Wallace Jones reflects the following: Q. Okay, now, what you observed personally, you never saw Felton Martin or Darrin Fox possessing marijuana at any time, did you, just your personal observations? A. Possessing marijuana? They were in the closest proximity to the marijuana that was recovered by myself. Q. Okay. But you never saw them actually holding marijuana. That's correct, isn't it? A. That's correct. ¶ 12. Detective Preston Carter, the only other prosecution witness who had been present at the scene, conceded that he did not see Martin until after he had been secured. The State suggests in its brief that drug paraphernalia such as ziplock bags and a pager found at the scene are further proof of Martin's guilt. While the State is correct that such paraphernalia might be probative as circumstantial evidence of intent to distribute, see generally Fox, 756 So.2d at 758-59, we do not find it probative as to the issue of constructive possession. Martin's mere presence in the kitchen area where the marijuana was found, without more, is simply not enough. Thus, even if all inferences drawn from the evidence are viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, there is still no evidence to support a finding that Martin was in constructive possession of the marijuana, or that he had any intent to distribute, and Martin's conviction therefore must be reversed and rendered.