106 So. 3d 1084
La. Ct. App.2012Background
- Defendant Anthony Kenner was charged with possession of cocaine under La. R.S. 40:967(C).
- He was tried by a six-member jury and found guilty as charged.
- Post-verdict motions were denied and he was adjudicated a triple offender.
- Trial court sentenced him to five years at hard labor with time served; appellate rights were invoked.
- The search of his residence at 1120 Kinler Street, Luling, followed confidential informant tips and two controlled buys; cocaine was found in a master bedroom nightstand and a kitchen microwave.
- Prosecutor’s theory prevailed on constructive possession and ownership through residence with co-occupant Ms. Toriana Ingram and access to the master bedroom and kitchen.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of the evidence to prove possession | Kenner contends evidence failed to show knowing possession | Kenner argues absence of proof of possession and knowledge | Sufficient evidence supports possession and knowledge beyond reasonable doubt |
| Constructive possession factors | State relied on proximity and ownership of residence | Defense challenges links between defendant and drugs | Court upheld constructive possession based on residence, control, and access evidence |
| Chain of custody adequacy | Chain of custody established link to trial evidence | Inconsistencies questioned identity of seized cocaine | Chain of custody deemed a factual matter for the jury; evidence sufficient to connect seized items to trial drugs |
| Errors patent review | Prescriptive period advisement and verdict form issue | Errors are reversible error or material omissions | Prescriptive advising error deemed non-reversible; written verdict omission immaterial to appeal outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Housley, 922 So.2d 659 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2006) (chain-of-custody is a factual matter for jury determination)
- State v. Cosey, 779 So.2d 675 (La.2000) (chain of custody can support admissibility and identification)
- State v. Arita, 900 So.2d 37 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2005) (chain of custody foundations; identification by the jury)
- State v. Champ, 803 So.2d 167 (La.App. 5 Cir. 2001) (omission of written verdict not reversible if immaterial)