State v. Bell
| Decision Date | 19 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | No. 90-K-0220,90-K-0220 |
| Citation | 566 So.2d 959 |
| Parties | STATE of Louisiana v. Alcides BELL and Andre Davis. 566 So.2d 959 |
| Court | Louisiana Supreme Court |
Dwight Michael Doskey, New Orleans, for defendant/applicant.
William J. Guste Jr., Harry F. Connick, New Orleans, Valentin Michael Solino, River Ridge, Jack Peebles, New Orleans, for plaintiff/respondent.
Although satisfied that relators' applications disclosed no error as to Andre Davis, we granted this writ and set it for argument in order to determine whether the state presented sufficient evidence to support the jury's conviction of both men for attempted possession of cocaine in violation of La.R.S. 14:27; 40:967. State v. Davis, 555 So.2d 633 (La.App. 4th Cir.1989), writ granted, 561 So.2d 108 (La.1990). As to Alcides Bell, we now reverse.
The evidence at trial showed that on the evening of November 2, 1987, Davis and Bell occupied the front seat of Davis' car parked two doors away from his residence in New Orleans. Davis sat behind the wheel and Bell occupied the passenger seat as they listened to loud music coming from the vehicle's radio. When police officers on routine patrol approached the car solely for purposes of asking relators to turn down the music, one of the officers saw through the driver's side window a distinctively wrapped package containing a white powder among cassette tapes on a plastic console placed over the transmission hump of the car. The officers ordered relators out of the car, retrieved the package, and placed both men under arrest for possession of cocaine.
From the evidence presented at trial, the jury could have reasonably found that Bell was aware of the package (and its contents) on the console in Davis' car. It is settled, however, that "[t]he mere presence of someone in the area where the controlled dangerous substance is found, or mere association with the person found to be in possession of the contraband, is insufficient to constitute constructive possession." State v. Walker, 369 So.2d 1345, 1346 (La.1979); State v. Trahan, 425 So.2d 1222 (La.1983); State v. Cann, 319 So.2d 396 (La.1975). The state must prove that the defendant had dominion and control over the contraband in order to establish his constructive possession of it, and each case turns on its particular facts. State v. Trahan, supra.
According to the testimony of the arresting officers, the state had no evidence that Bell exercised any control over Davis' car, that he had any...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Robinson v. Cain
...i.e., guilty knowledge.The defendant cites to State v. Holland, 2008-1116 (La. App. 4 Cir. 5/20/09), 13 So.3d 777, State v. Bell, 566 So.2d 959 (La.1990), and State v. Jackson, 557 So.2d 1034 (La. App. 4 Cir.1990), in support of his proposition that the requisite dominion and/or control was......
-
Rivas v. US
...in addition to knowledge and proximity, without distinguishing whether drugs are found in a car or other premises. See State v. Bell, 566 So.2d 959, 960 (La.1990) (reversing a conviction based on a theory of constructive possession because "[f]rom Bell's mere presence in the car close to th......
-
State v. Odle, 02-0226.
...over the narcotics. He claims the circumstances of the present case are similar to the factual circumstances present in State v. Bell, 566 So.2d 959 (La.1990). Since we have set forth the facts in detail in Shaw's sufficiency of evidence claim, we will not repeat them In Bell, the supreme c......
-
State v. Brown
...he had knowledge of its presence and "dominion and control" over it. State v. Harris, 94-0970 (La.12/8/94), 647 So.2d 337; State v. Bell, 566 So.2d 959 (La.1990); State v. Barakat, The mere presence of a person in the place where contraband is found or the mere association with a person pos......