I've done most of this assignment, I just stuck on the last three things:

(my paper is below). I do not know if this case would have a concurring or dissenting opinion & then a comment is needed.

Concurring Opinion (if present):

Dissenting Opinion (if present):

Comment:

Case Brief: Miller V State:

Title/Citation:Miller v. State

6.S.W.3d 812 (Ark.App. 1999)

Procedural History:James Luther Miller, the defendant-appellant, was convicted by a jury of possession of cocaine and marijuana and sentenced to thirty years' incarceration on the cocaine-possession conviction. He was sentenced to one year's imprisonment in the county jail on the marijuana-possession conviction, and ordered to pay a $1000 fine. Miller appealed. The Court of Appeals, Neal, J., held that: (1) evidence established that defendant constructively possessed marijuana found in vehicle, and (2) evidence did not establish that defendant constructively possessed cocaine found in vehicle. Affirmed part; reversed and dismissed in part.

Judge:OLLY NEAL, J.

Facts:On February 23, 1997, Arkansas State Police Officer Tim Land testified that he came into contact the defendant-appellant, James Luther Miller, during a traffic stop while Miller was a passenger in the vehicle of Michael Alexander. Trooper Land became suspicious of the vehicle due to the fact that it approached his patrol car, but would not pass him.

Trooper Land pulled the vehicle over after realizing that it did not have a license plate. While approaching the vehicle, Land smelled a strong odor of burning marijuana coming from the vehicle. Michael Alexander, the driver, exited the vehicle after Land smelled both alcohol and marijuana on his persons. Alexander was given a field sobriety test, which he failed. Trooper Land radioed for assistance, and Alexander was taken to county jail to receive a breathalyzer. Land testified that there were four total men in the vehicle; James Giles, Damon Albert, James Miller (appellant), and Michael Alexander himself.

Upon searching the vehicle, Trooper Land recovered; three rolling papers, but he could not remember to whom they belonged, as well as three rocks of crack cocaine and a pouch of marijuana which had been located behind the driver's seatdirectly in front of Damon Albert.

Michael Alexander, the driver of the vehicle, testified that on February 23^rd, he asked Miller to accompany him on a trip to Hope, Arkansas. Miller and Alexander proceeded to pick up Albert and Giles, and the men drove to Hope where Giles and Albert purchased the crack cocaine. According to Alexander, Miller was entirely unaware of the crack in the vehicle, and only became aware of the marijuana once it was smoked. However, Alexander later testified that all of the vehicles occupants were aware of the marijuana as it was in the vehicle prior to driving to Hope.

Judgment/Decision:The conviction for possession of cocaine, that was handed down to the appellant, is reversed and dismissed. The conviction for possession of marijuana is affirmed.

Issue:The State does not need to prove literal physical possession of drugs in order to prove possession. Possession of drugs can be proved by constructive possession, which is when drugs are in the joint control of the accused and another person.

Joint occupancy of a vehicle, standing alone, is not sufficient to prove possession or joint possession. In cases involving automobiles, other factors must be considered, like:

1.Whether the contraband is in plain view,

2.Whether the contraband is found within the accuser's personal effects,

3.Whether is it found on the same side of the car seat as the accused was sitting or in near proximity to it,

4.Whether the accused is the owner of the automobile, or exercised dominion and control over it; and

5.Whether the accused acted suspiciously before or during the arrest.

Holding:a result of the evidence presented in trial, we hold that the State did not present sufficient evidence of any factor, other than to occupancy, to establish Miller's constructive possession of cocaine.

Reasoning:We believe that the evidence is sufficient to conclude that the jury had substantial evidence from which it could find that appellant constructively possessed marijuana. Although the marijuana was not in plain view, we believe that the fact that the police officer smelled marijuana upon approaching the vehicle established that Miller was aware of the presence of the marijuana. The knowledge of the existence of the contraband provides substantial evidence of constructive possession.

If the evidence is sufficient to support the conviction of possession of cocaine presents a more difficult question. As a result of Bond v. State (1994), our case law makes it clear that the drugs must be found on the same side of the vehicle as the accused, or in close proximity to the accused.

Miller was a rear-seat passenger in his friend's car. The contraband found was not in plain view, was not under appellant's exclusive control, and was not found near the seat in which the appellant was seated. During trial, there was no testimony about suspicious behavior by the appellant, and no evidence was presented that there was any contraband found on the appellant's person. However, there was testimony that the appellant was unaware of the cocaine in the car until the police conducted a search of the vehicle.