 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
DeShields v. State10/6/2004
NOT DESIGNATED FOR PUBLICATION
Appellant, Bobby DeShields, who, according to court documents, was born January 3, 1987, appeals from his adjudication as a delinquent for being a minor in possession of alcohol. On appeal, he argues that the State failed to establish that he was in actual or constructive possession of alcohol. We affirm.
The State filed a delinquency petition asking that the court adjudicate appellant a juvenile delinquent for being a minor in possession of alcohol. At the hearing on the State's delinquency petition, Detective Andy Lee of the Bentonville Police Department testified that while on patrol shortly after midnight on February 8, 2003, he stopped a Ford Mustang that was "weaving" and that had a fictitious license plate. Upon stopping the car, Lee determined that it was occupied by two juveniles; appellant was the driver and Gary Strimpel was the front-seat passenger. Lee smelled a strong odor of alcohol coming from the car. Appellant was unable to produce a driver's license or paperwork for the car, and Lee asked appellant and Strimpel to exit the car. Appellant's eyes were red and watery, his speech was slurred, he was unsteady on his feet, and he registered .06 on the breath test. After appellant was asked to perform field-sobriety tests, he was arrested for driving under the influence of alcohol, driving with a fictitious license plate, driving without a license, and other traffic violations.
The car, Lee determined, belonged to a member of appellant's family. Upon searching the car, Lee found a spilled beer on the passenger's floor board and a bottle of "Purple Passion" alcohol between the two front seats. When describing the location of the bottle, Lee testified that " retty much it was just out in the open. It was just sitting right there. I mean, it wasn't hidden or anything...." He further testified that it was accessible to both appellant and Strimpel. Appellant was cited for being a minor in possession of alcohol.
On appeal, appellant argues that the State failed to produce evidence that he actually or constructively possessed the bottle of Purple Passion. He asserts that the bottle was not on his person, with his personal effects, or in plain view; instead, the bottle was discovered only after Lee searched for it. Appellant also notes Strimpel's testimony that he placed the bottle between his feet in the floorboard and might have kicked it, and appellant argues that this is consistent with Lee's testimony regarding the location of the bottle. He observes that while appellant appeared intoxicated, the statutes provide that " intoxicating liquor, wine, or beer in the body of a minor shall not be deemed to be in his possession." Ark. Code Ann. § 3-3-203(a)(2) (Supp. 2003). Further, he contends that there was no testimony offered to show that appellant had knowledge that there were alcoholic beverages in the car or that appellant acted suspiciously. In response, the State argues that appellant was in constructive possession of the alcohol.
In reviewing the sufficiency of the evidence to support an adjudication of delinquency, we affirm if the adjudication is supported by substantial evidence. Hunter v. State, 341 Ark. 665, 19 S.W.3d 607 (2000). In making our review, we consider only the evidence that tends to support the finding of delinquency, and we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State. Id. It is not necessary for the State to prove actual physical possession in order to prove possession; rather, constructive possession will suffice. Mings v. State, 318 Ark. 201, 884 S.W.2d 596 (1994). Joint occupancy of a vehicle, standing alone, is not sufficient to establish possession or joint possession; there
Page 1 2 Arkansas DUI Attorneys
DUI Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to DUI Lawyers in your area.
|
|