State v. Lattin, 256 So. 3d 484

On March 24, 2016 narcotics agents executed a search warrant at Edward Lattin’s Shreveport residence; Lattin, his girlfriend Latasha Robinson, and Latasha’s nephew Brian Robinson were present.
Officers found ~22 grams of marijuana under the bed in the master bedroom, a scale on the dresser, and a .22 revolver in a shoe box on the dresser; Lattin admitted the marijuana and scale were his but denied knowledge of the gun.
Brian initially told an agent the gun was his, but could not provide details at the scene; at trial Brian testified he bought the gun days earlier, placed it in the shoe box on the dresser out of reach, and did not tell Lattin.
Agent Witham’s trial testimony conflicted with Brian on details (box color/location, gun capacity, condition) and the agent testified Brian could not coherently describe the gun during the search.
Expert testimony (Sgt. Whitehorn) linked the amount of marijuana and presence of a scale to possible distribution and noted dealers commonly possess weapons for protection.
A jury found Lattin guilty 10–2 of illegal carrying of a weapon while in possession of a controlled dangerous substance (La. R.S. 14:95(E)); Lattin appealed claiming insufficient evidence of possession of the gun.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Sufficiency of evidence that Lattin possessed the firearm while in possession of CDS under La. R.S. 14:95(E)	State: constructive possession sufficed because the gun was in Lattin’s bedroom near admitted CDS and scale; jury may infer dominion/control and nexus to drugs	Lattin: no direct evidence he actually possessed the gun; state failed to prove constructive possession, awareness, or general intent to possess the gun	Affirmed: viewing evidence in light most favorable to prosecution, a rational juror could find constructive possession and a nexus between gun and CDS; inconsistencies in Brian’s account were for the jury to resolve

Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (standard for sufficiency of the evidence review)
State v. Blanchard, 776 So.2d 1165 (La. 2001) (La. R.S. 14:95(E) covers actual and constructive possession; when only constructive possession is shown state must prove nexus between firearm and drug offense)
State v. Ruffins, 940 So.2d 45 (La. App. 2 Cir. 2006) (actual possession defined as direct physical contact and control)
State v. Johnson, 870 So.2d 995 (La. 2004) (constructive possession requires dominion/control and awareness; mere presence is insufficient)
State v. Tate, 851 So.2d 921 (La. 2003) (applies Jackson standard under Louisiana law)