Jones v. State
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 775
ARKANSAS COURT OF APPEALS
DIVISION IV
No. CACR 10-373
Opinion Delivered
ZECHARIAH I. JONES
17, 2010
APPELLANT
NOVEMBER
V.
APPEAL FROM THE PULASKI
COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT, FIFTH
DIVISION, [NO. CR-09-2028]
STATE OF ARKANSAS
HONORABLE WILLARD PROCTOR,
JR., JUDGE
APPELLEE
AFFIRMED
JOHN B. ROBBINS, Judge
Appellant Zechariah I. Jones was convicted in a bench trial of second-offense
possession of marijuana. Mr. Jones was placed on four years’ probation and fined $300.
Mr. Jones’s sole argument on appeal is that there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction. We affirm.
The test for determining the sufficiency of the evidence on appeal is whether the
verdict is supported by substantial evidence, direct or circumstantial. Bowker v. State, 363 Ark.
345, 214 S.W.3d 243 (2005). Evidence is substantial if it is of sufficient force and character
to compel reasonable minds to reach a conclusion and pass beyond suspicion and conjecture.
Id. On appeal, we view the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, considering only
that evidence that supports the verdict. Id. Further, when the sufficiency of the evidence is
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 775
challenged, we will not weigh witness credibility. Baughman v. State, 353 Ark. 1, 110 S.W.3d
740 (2003).
North Little Rock Police Officer Andrew Brush was the only witness to testify for the
State. Officer Brush was on patrol on the evening of April 11, 2009, when he stopped a Jeep
being driven by Mr. Jones for not having a rear-view mirror. A computer check showed that
Mr. Jones was driving on a suspended license, and as a result Officer Brush began the process
of impounding the vehicle. Backup officers arrived, and Officer Brush conducted a patdown
search of Mr. Jones. No contraband was found on Mr. Jones, and he was instructed to sit on
the hood of the patrol car while Officer Brush performed an inventory search of the Jeep.
Officer Brush testified that during the search of the Jeep he found seeds and stems on
the driver’s side floorboard. Officer Brush also noticed several unused baggies in the
compartment of the side door. While Officer Brush was conducting the search, Mr. Jones fled
on foot and was apprehended about two blocks away and brought back to the scene.
As the search resumed, Officer Brush found a plastic baggie containing marijuana in
the center console. Officer Brush also found three more quantities of marijuana wrapped in
a tissue paper, a paper towel, and a speeding citation. The crime lab confirmed that each of
these substances was marijuana. The State also submitted a judgment showing that Mr. Jones
had a prior conviction in 2005 for possession of marijuana with intent to deliver.
-2-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 775
On cross-examination, Officer Brush testified that the Jeep was registered to a man
named Chris Faught. The speeding citation was issued to a woman named Christine Mooney
who had been driving a Chevrolet Caprice when she received the ticket.
Mr. Jones testified on his own behalf, and he stated that he was purchasing the Jeep
from a friend. Mr. Jones stated that he had not yet made all of the payments on the Jeep, so
the paperwork was not yet in his name. Mr. Jones testified that he had been driving the Jeep
for about three weeks to a month and used it to store equipment for his lawn care business.
Mr. Jones did not recall there being seeds and stems all over the driver’s side floorboard.
Furthermore, Mr. Jones stated that he did not know how the marijuana got into the Jeep and
that he did not know it was there.
Mr. Jones argues on appeal that there was insufficient evidence to support his
conviction for possessing marijuana. He asserts that there was no direct evidence that he
possessed any marijuana, and further contends that there was insufficient evidence of
constructive possession. He acknowledges that circumstantial evidence can constitute
substantial evidence when every other reasonable hypothesis consistent with innocence is
excluded. See Kirwan v. State, 351 Ark. 603, 96 S.W.3d 724 (2003). However, Mr. Jones
submits that the facts of this case demonstrated a reasonable probability that the marijuana did
not belong to him.
Mr. Jones notes that he was not the registered owner of the Jeep and had possessed it
for thirty days at the most. Officer Brush never testified that he saw Mr. Jones exercise control
-3-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 775
of any of the contraband. There was no fingerprinting done on the items containing
contraband, and Mr. Jones submits that it is reasonable to conclude that the marijuana either
belonged to the registered owner of the car or the woman cited in the speeding ticket.
Because the State failed to prove that he exercised care, control, and management of the
marijuana, Mr. Jones argues that his conviction should be reversed.
We hold that there was substantial evidence to support the trial court’s finding that Mr.
Jones was in constructive possession of the marijuana seized from the Jeep. Under our law,
it is clear that the State need not prove that the accused physically possessed the contraband
in order to sustain a conviction for possession of a controlled substance if the location of the
contraband was such that it could be said to be under the dominion and control of the
accused, that is, constructive possession. Darrough v. State, 330 Ark. 808, 957 S.W.2d 707
(1997). A single occupant in a borrowed car or car owned by another is only subject to the
general inquiry for constructive possession; the State need only prove constructive possession
of the contraband without including any inquiry into the elements for joint occupancy. Polk
v. State, 348 Ark. 446, 73 S.W.3d 609 (2002). Constructive possession can be implied where
the contraband was found in a place immediately and exclusively accessible to the accused and
subject to his control. Id. An accused’s suspicious behavior coupled with proximity to the
contraband is clearly indicative of possession. Id.
In this case the State presented proof that Mr. Jones was driving the Jeep and was the
sole occupant of the vehicle. Mr. Jones admitted that he had been in control of the Jeep for
-4-
Cite as 2010 Ark. App. 775
at least three weeks and used it in connection with his lawn care business. Upon stopping the
Jeep, Officer Brush found seeds and stems in plain view on the driver’s side floorboard.
Several items containing marijuana were found in the center console, which was immediately
and exclusively accessible to Mr. Jones. Mr. Jones attempted to flee during the search, and
flight following the commission of an offense is a factor that may be considered with other
evidence in determining guilt. See Alexander v. State, 78 Ark. App. 56, 77 S.W.3d 544 (2002).
And while Mr. Jones claimed that he did not know how the marijuana got into the Jeep, the
trial court was not required to believe his self-serving testimony. See Brown v. State, 374 Ark.
341, 288 S.W.3d 226 (2008). Viewed in the light most favorable to the State there was
substantial evidence to support Mr. Jones’s conviction for second-offense possession of
marijuana, and therefore we affirm the conviction.
Affirmed.
HART and GRUBER, JJ., agree.
-5-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
