Court Opinion

ID: 9600065
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 01:24:04.379992+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:01:49.896840
License: Public Domain

Deen, Presiding Judge,
dissenting in part.
I must respectfully dissent as to the majority’s finding that a directed verdict of acquittal was demanded as a matter of law as to Counts 2 and 3 of the indictment.
After conviction, all evidence must be construed to uphold the verdict. The State’s theory was that the appellant acted together with another named Park in selling drugs out of the latter’s trailer. Appellant was in the house approximately 36 hours while there was much traffic in and about the premises. Drug sales were made during this period. Viewing the evidence in its totality, such as the false law enforcement badge, scales, the artificial head of lettuce, the weapons, rolling trays, the marijuana and other drugs, and the smell of marijuana, a jury could find joint constructive possession of the substance found in the trailer.
*98Decided May 27, 1987.
Martin B. Findley, for appellant.
Rafe Banks III, District Attorney, T. Russell McClelland II, Assistant District Attorney, for appellee.
While appellant contended that the alleged odor of marijuana was really the odor of five dogs living in the house, and that he was there moving furniture most of the time rather than possessing the drugs with the intent to distribute, I believe that a jury question was raised as to whether Park alone was guilty or whether appellant was a party to the crime of possession of the controlled substances found in the trailer. There is more here than being at the scene of the crime or, as alluded to in the majority opinion of “merely having been in the vicinity of contraband.” I would affirm the judgment of the trial court in its entirety.
I am authorized to state that Presiding Judge McMurray and Judge Beasley join in this dissent.