Glidden v. State
74 So. 3d 342
| Miss. | 2011Background
- Glidden was convicted of possession of a controlled substance (450 grams of marijuana) found in Buckner's pickup.
- Truck belonged to Buckner; Glidden had borrowed it for about 30 minutes to respond to an emergency service call.
- Police stopped the truck; a large bag of marijuana was on the driver’s floorboard, in plain view, not under the seat.
- Glidden claimed he did not know drugs were in the vehicle and argued the bag may have been Buckner’s.
- The State relied on constructive-possession theory; Glidden was adjudged an habitual offender, facing up to 8 years without parole; trial court sentenced four years.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed; the Mississippi Supreme Court granted certiorari to review sufficiency of the evidence and related issues.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the evidence legally sufficient for possession (constructive possession)? | Glidden in Buckner's truck near the bag; proximity supports possession. | Proximity alone is insufficient; no other incriminating circumstances tying Glidden to the bag. | Yes; evidence supports constructive possession beyond reasonable doubt. |
| Did the trial court err in denying a judgment notwithstanding the verdict on sufficiency? | Insufficient evidence to prove possession beyond a reasonable doubt. | No additional incriminating evidence linking Glidden to the bag. | No error; verdict supported by sufficient evidence. |
| Were the circumstantial-evidence instructions properly denied or should they have been admitted? | Instructions should have allowed emphasis on circumstantial proof of possession. | Prosecution theory supported by direct and circumstantial evidence; instructions were adequate. | Without merit; Court adopted the Court of Appeals analysis affirming the rulings. |
Key Cases Cited
- Wall v. State, 718 So.2d 1107 (Miss. 1998) (defines knowledge and intent in possession cases (constructive possession).)
- McClellan v. State, 34 So.3d 548 (Miss. 2010) (constructive possession framework and governing standards.)
- Hudson v. State, 30 So.3d 1199 (Miss. 2010) (distinguishes actual vs constructive possession and required awareness.)
- Dilworth v. State, 909 So.2d 731 (Miss. 2005) (tests for sufficiency when reviewing constructive-possession claims.)
- Ferrell v. State, 649 So.2d 831 (Miss. 1995) (reaffirms need for incriminating circumstances beyond proximity.)
- Blissett v. State, 754 So.2d 1242 (Miss. 2000) (constructive possession upheld where additional incriminating evidence exists.)
- Dixon v. State, 953 So.2d 1108 (Miss. 2007) (proximity alone insufficient when not tied to dominion/control.)
- Curry v. State, 249 So.2d 414 (Miss. 1971) (early articulation of awareness and intentional possession elements.)
- Jones v. State, 693 So.2d 375 (Miss. 1997) (discusses factual sufficiency in possession cases.)
- Hyundai v. Applewhite, 53 So.3d 749 (Miss. 2011) (clarifies standards for civil-like knowledge versus criminal knowledge in design/defect contexts.)