Lambert v. State, 490 S.W.3d 325

Defendant Derrick Lambert, a convicted felon, was a backseat passenger in a Tahoe stopped at ~2:00 a.m.; driver Misty Johnson and front-seat passenger Alex Harrington were also present.
Officers observed Lambert moving in the backseat and attempting to exit the vehicle before officers approached; Johnson testified both passengers told her not to consent to a search.
Johnson consented to a search; officers found a handgun in the armrest compartment of the seat back immediately next to where Lambert had been sitting.
Lambert denied ownership and claimed Harrington placed the gun in the armrest; Johnson and officers testified a front-seat passenger could not have reached the backseat to place the gun.
Lambert was convicted of being a felon in possession of a firearm, sentenced to four years and fined; his post-trial motion for new trial alleging undisclosed exculpatory evidence (Brady) was denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of the evidence to prove constructive possession	State: Circumstantial evidence and linking factors support constructive possession	Lambert: Only circumstantial proof; joint-occupancy of vehicle means State failed to show he exercised care, control, and management	Affirmed: Substantial circumstantial evidence (proximity, sole access, suspicious behavior) supported conviction
Denial of new trial based on alleged Brady violation	Lambert: Prosecutor suppressed Harrington’s exculpatory statement that neither passenger had a gun	State: Harrington’s testimony would be cumulative/conflicting and disclosure would not likely change outcome	Affirmed: No reasonable probability outcome would differ; no prejudice shown

Harmon v. State, 340 Ark. 18, 8 S.W.3d 472 (constructive-possession standard; substantial-evidence review)
Cherry v. State, 80 Ark. App. 222, 95 S.W.3d 5 (constructive possession may be proven without actual physical possession)
Walker v. State, 77 Ark. App. 122, 72 S.W.3d 517 (elements of constructive possession: care, control, and knowledge)
Webb v. State, 460 S.W.3d 820 (contraband in joint control may support constructive possession when other linking factors exist)
Gamble v. State, 82 Ark. App. 216, 105 S.W.3d 801 (linking factors: proximity, suspicious behavior, and other indicia tying defendant to contraband)
Plotts v. State, 297 Ark. 66, 759 S.W.2d 793 (factors for linking defendant to contraband in a vehicle)
Harris v. State, 439 S.W.3d 715 (circumstantial evidence can support conviction if consistent with guilt and inconsistent with other reasonable explanations)
Harrison v. State, 371 Ark. 652, 269 S.W.3d 321 (standard of review for denial of new trial)
Sanders v. State, 374 Ark. 70, 285 S.W.3d 630 (prejudice standard for undisclosed evidence: reasonable probability outcome would differ)
Rychtarik v. State, 334 Ark. 492, 976 S.W.2d 374 (burden on appellant to show discovery violation undermined confidence in outcome)