Wade v. State
| Decision Date | 23 January 1980 |
| Docket Number | No. CA,CA |
| Citation | 267 Ark. 1101,594 S.W.2d 43 |
| Parties | Betty WADE, Appellant, v. STATE of Arkansas, Appellee. CR 79-110. |
| Court | Arkansas Court of Appeals |
John W. Achor, Public Defender by William H. Patterson, Jr., Deputy Public Defender, Little Rock, for appellant.
Steve Clark, Atty. Gen. by Victra L. Fewell, Asst. Atty. Gen., Little Rock, for appellee.
On April 19, 1979, Appellant Wade was tried by a jury and found guilty of possession of heroin. She was sentenced to five years. From this sentence Wade appeals.
On August 1, 1978, a warrant was obtained for the search of a residence on Mablevale Pike. During the search by Little Rock police officers Wade was seen to drop to the floor a syringe, a tinfoil packet, and a cotton ball. The syringe and cotton ball contained heroin.
Wade alleges there was insufficient evidence to support the verdict. Richard Fulks, of the Narcotics Division of the Little Rock Police Department, testified he had just told one of the occupants of the residence she was to be searched by a female detective. As he turned to talk to Wade he saw three articles fall to the floor the syringe, tinfoil packet and cotton ball. He stated he did not see them in her hands but did see them fall to the floor beside her. He testified Wade was standing alone not close to any furniture nor any other of the occupants. He also stated Wade was the only occupant who was standing. Another officer Lowery testified he saw the packet and syringe on the floor close to Wade. He further stated all other suspects were seven or eight feet from Wade and there was plenty of light in the house. An expert witness from the Arkansas State Crime Laboratory testified the dropped articles contained heroin.
Johnny Trimble testified for Wade and Wade took the stand herself. Trimble testified the packet was on the floor when he and Wade first arrived at the residence. Wade testified she had never seen nor had the syringe and the packet. She also testified it was getting dusky dark and the only light that was on was in the bathroom.
The Arkansas Supreme Court has held that, in cases involving possession of controlled substances, actual or physical possession is not required.
. . . possession may be imputed when the contraband is found in a place which is immediately and exclusively accessible to the accused and subject to his dominion and control ....
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hodge v. State
...intent to deliver methamphetamine. We have often said that proof of actual or physical possession is not required. See Wade v. State, 267 Ark. 1101, 594 S.W.2d 43 (1980). A person can be in constructive possession of contraband when he either maintains control or a right to control. See San......
-
Bradley v. State
...in a place which is immediately and exclusively accessible to the accused and subject to his dominion and control. See Wade v. State, 267 Ark. 1101, 594 S.W.2d 43 (1980); see also Crossley v. State, 304 Ark. 378, 802 S.W.2d 459 In this case, the trial court placed substantial emphasis on th......
-
Sweat v. State
...87, 632 S.W.2d 448 (1982). The case law is clear that actual or physical possession of the contraband is not required. Wade v. State, 267 Ark. 1101, 594 S.W.2d 43 (1980). Possession may be imputed when the contraband is found in a place which is immediately and exclusively accessible to the......
-
Bradley v. State, 01-681
...in a place which is immediately and exclusively accessible to the accused and subject to his dominion and control. See Wade v. State, 267 Ark. 1101, 594 S.W.2d 43 (1980); see also Crossley v. State, 304 Ark. 378, 902 S.W.2d 459 In this case, the trial court placed substantial emphasis on th......