Peden v. State
132 So. 3d 631
| Miss. Ct. App. | 2014Background
- Police received a tip from a confidential informant that two black males were selling cocaine from a Western Motel room in Philadelphia, MS; officers obtained a search warrant and executed it within 24 hours.
- Officers found Roventay Tremaine Peden and Lewis Clemons asleep under separate covers in two beds in the same motel room.
- A small bag of cocaine was found in Clemons’s pocket; a separate bag of crack rocks sat on a table between the beds, about six inches from Peden’s bed and within his arm’s reach.
- Clemons pled guilty and testified at Peden’s trial that the bag on the table was not his; he said his cocaine was in his pocket.
- Peden was indicted, tried, convicted of constructive possession of cocaine, sentenced to seven years in MDOC (with credit for time served), and his post-trial motions were denied.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of evidence for constructive possession | State: circumstantial evidence (proximity, awareness, Clemons’s denial) supports constructive possession | Peden: only proximity tied him to the bag; no actual possession or exclusive control shown | Court: Evidence sufficient; proximity plus other incriminating circumstances (bag within reach, in plain view, Clemons disclaimed it) permits conviction |
| Refusal of Jury Instruction D-6 (definition of possession) | Peden: D-6 properly articulated required mental state and constructive-possession standard | State/Court: instruction duplicative of given instructions D-7 and D-9 | Court: refusal proper—D-6 was repetitive; instructions read as whole fairly announced law |
| Refusal of Jury Instruction D-10 (presumption from room owner) | Peden: instruction would have informed jury that Clemons’s status as renter creates presumption of constructive possession which State must rebut | State/Court: facts do not support presumption in favor of renter as to the table bag (Clemons disclaimed it; bag in plain view near Peden) | Court: refusal proper—renting alone did not establish exclusive dominion; no foundation for instruction |
| Motion to suppress warrant / staleness of informant's tip | Peden: affidavit failed to show when CI observed narcotics; tip may be stale so search unreasonable | State: officer testified CI was in room 2–3 hours before warrant; CI had provided truthful information previously; events within 24 hours | Court: denial of suppression affirmed—information was not stale and CI reliability was adequately supported |
Key Cases Cited
- Collins v. State, 97 So.3d 1247 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (motion for directed verdict challenges sufficiency of evidence)
- Bush v. State, 895 So.2d 836 (Miss. 2005) (standard for reviewing sufficiency challenges)
- Glidden v. State, 74 So.3d 353 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010) (constructive possession shown by dominion or control; proximity alone insufficient)
- Curry v. State, 249 So.2d 414 (Miss. 1971) (constructive possession defined as dominion or control)
- Cunningham v. State, 583 So.2d 960 (Miss. 1991) (presumption of constructive possession against owner of premises where contraband is found)
- Pate v. State, 557 So.2d 1183 (Miss. 1990) (mere rental/registration of hotel room insufficient to show constructive possession when defendant not present)
- Perilloux v. State, 113 So.3d 603 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (trial court discretion on jury instructions; instructions must fairly announce law)
- Cooper v. State, 93 So.3d 898 (Miss. Ct. App. 2012) (affidavit may establish CI veracity by attesting to past credible information)