Elijah Bennett Dowdle v. State of Mississippi
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
IN THE COURT OF APPEALS OF THE STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
NO. 2009-KA-01994-COA
ELIJAH BENNETT DOWDLE
APPELLANT
v.
STATE OF MISSISSIPPI
DATE OF JUDGMENT:
TRIAL JUDGE:
COURT FROM WHICH APPEALED:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLANT:
ATTORNEY FOR APPELLEE:
DISTRICT ATTORNEY:
NATURE OF THE CASE:
TRIAL COURT DISPOSITION:
DISPOSITION:
MOTION FOR REHEARING FILED:
MANDATE ISSUED:
APPELLEE
09/04/2009
HON. LEE J. HOWARD
LOWNDES COUNTY CIRCUIT COURT
ERIN ELIZABETH PRIDGEN
OFFICE OF THE ATTORNEY GENERAL
BY: LADONNA C. HOLLAND
FORREST ALLGOOD
CRIMINAL - FELONY
CONVICTED OF POSSESSION OF LESS
THAN ONE GRAM OF COCAINE AND
SENTENCED AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER
TO EIGHT YEARS IN THE CUSTODY OF
THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF
CORRECTIONS, WITHOUT ELIGIBILITY
FOR PROBATION OR PAROLE, AND TO
PAY A $20,000 FINE
AFFIRMED: 03/01/2011
BEFORE KING, C.J., GRIFFIS AND ISHEE, JJ.
KING, C.J., FOR THE COURT:
¶1.
Elijah Bennett Dowdle was convicted in the Circuit Court of Lowndes County of
possession of less than one gram of cocaine. He was sentenced as a habitual offender and
as a repeat drug offender to eight years in the custody of the Mississippi Department of
Corrections (MDOC) and ordered to pay a $20,000 fine. Aggrieved, Dowdle appeals, raising
one issue: whether the trial court erred by denying his motion for a new trial. Finding no
error, we affirm Dowdle’s conviction and sentence.
FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY
¶2.
The crime occurred on July 20, 2007, in Caledonia, Mississippi, in Lowndes County.
Dowdle and Pat Logan, a friend and motorcycle shop owner, often traded motorcycles and
other vehicles. On this day, Logan wanted Dowdle to purchase a used Honda automobile for
him from Raymond Earl Smith (Earl), a used car salesman. Dowdle purchased the car from
Earl. Because the car did not have a license plate, Dowdle took the license plate off of his
truck and put it on the car before driving it to Logan’s shop.
¶3.
Dowdle did not get very far before he was pulled over by Lowndes County Deputy
Chris Smith for having a broken headlight. Deputy Smith testified that when he approached
the car, Dowdle appeared to be nervous, would not make eye contact with him, and kept
looking at the passenger seat. Fearing that Dowdle may have a weapon in the passenger seat,
Deputy Smith asked Dowdle to step out of the car. Deputy Smith testified that he checked
Dowdle’s driver’s license and license plate. The search revealed that Dowdle’s driver’s
license had been suspended and that the license plate was not registered to that car. Deputy
Smith asked Dowdle whether there were any drugs or weapons in the car, and Dowdle told
Deputy Smith that there were drugs underneath a hat on the passenger’s seat. Deputy Smith
checked the car and found a rock-like substance underneath the hat, which was later analyzed
by the Mississippi Crime Laboratory and determined to be 0.05 gram of cocaine. Deputy
Smith also found a soda can, which appeared to be used as drug paraphernalia. Deputy
2
Smith testified that Dowdle did not appear to be under the influence, and the soda can was
not hot. Based upon his findings, Deputy Smith arrested Dowdle.
¶4.
Dowdle was indicted as a habitual offender for possession of less than one gram of
cocaine. The indictment also sought an enhanced penalty based on Dowdle’s prior drugrelated offense. Dowdle was previously convicted on April 6, 1979, in the Clay County
Circuit Court of grand larceny and sentenced to three years in the custody of the MDOC.
Dowdle was also previously convicted on April 11, 1989, in the Clay County Circuit Court
of possession of marijuana with intent to distribute and sentenced to three years in the
custody of the MDOC.
¶5.
At the trial, Dowdle testified that the hat must have been in the passenger’s seat before
he got into the car. Dowdle stated that he did not notice the hat until he was stopped by
Deputy Smith. Dowdle testified that he picked up the hat and saw the drugs sitting on the
seat. On cross-examination, Dowdle was questioned about a prior inconsistent statement that
he made to the police when he said: “Earl took his hat off and threw it in the seat and told me
to have it, because I earned it.” Dowdle identified his initials on the statement, but he
testified that the statement was incorrect. Dowdle also admitted that he had previously been
convicted of perjury, which occurred on April 17, 2003, in the Clay County Circuit Court.
¶6.
Earl testified that he keeps his used cars in an open field and that the cars are typically
unlocked. However, Earl maintained that he cleans all of the cars before providing them to
the purchasers, so there should not have been anything left in the car that he sold to Dowdle.
Earl also testified that he did not give Dowdle a hat, and the hat found in the car did not
belong to him.
3
¶7.
A Lowndes County jury convicted Dowdle of the crime. He was sentenced as a
habitual offender and as a repeat drug offender to eight years in the custody of the MDOC
and ordered to pay a $20,000 fine. Thereafter, Dowdle filed a motion for a judgment
notwithstanding the verdict (JNOV) or, in the alternative, a new trial. The trial court denied
the motions. Aggrieved, Dowdle timely filed his notice of appeal.
ANALYSIS
¶8.
Dowdle argues that the verdict was against the overwhelming weight of the evidence.
However, his argument also attacks whether the State proved that he intentionally and
knowingly possessed cocaine, which is an element of the crime. The legal sufficiency of the
evidence and the weight of the evidence are separate issues; thus, we will address them as
such.
I. Legal Sufficiency
¶9.
A motion for a directed verdict or a motion for a JNOV challenges the legal
sufficiency of the evidence. Bush v. State, 895 So. 2d 836, 843 (¶16) (Miss. 2005). All of
the credible evidence consistent with the defendant’s guilt must be viewed in the light most
favorable to the State. Id. at (¶17). We will not disturb the trial court’s ruling if “the
evidence shows ‘beyond a reasonable doubt that [the] accused committed the act charged,
and that he did so under such circumstances that every element of the offense existed; and
where the evidence fails to meet this test it is insufficient to support a conviction.” Id. at
(¶16) (quoting Carr v. State, 208 So. 2d 886, 889 (Miss. 1968)). Thus, the Court must
determine “whether, after viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the prosecution,
any rational trier of fact could have found the essential elements of the crime beyond a
4
reasonable doubt.” Id. (citation omitted).
¶10.
Dowdle was charged with possession of less than one gram of cocaine under
Mississippi Code Annotated section 41-29-139 (Rev. 2009), which makes it unlawful for a
person intentionally or knowingly to possess a controlled substance. Dowdle argues that the
evidence did not support a finding that he knowingly or intentionally possessed the cocaine.
Dowdle maintains that the car was unlocked and sitting in an open field where anyone could
have access to the car, suggesting that someone else put the cocaine in the car. Conversely,
the State argues that the evidence supports a finding that Dowdle had constructive possession
of the cocaine.
¶11.
“Constructive possession may be established where the evidence, considered under
the totality of the circumstances, shows that the defendant ‘conscientiously exercised control
over the contraband.’” Ealey v. State, 967 So. 2d 685, 689 (¶11) (Miss. Ct. App. 2007)
(quoting Dixon v. State, 953 So. 2d 1108, 1112 (¶9) (Miss. 2007)). The defendant’s
proximity to the drugs is a factor in establishing constructive possession, but it is not
determinative. Id. (citing Curry v. State, 249 So. 2d 414, 416 (Miss. 1971)). Other
incriminating circumstances must be present to establish constructive possession. Id.
¶12.
In this case, the evidence established that the cocaine was underneath a hat on the
passenger’s seat of the car that Dowdle was driving. Deputy Smith testified that Dowdle
kept looking at the hat and acting nervous. When Deputy Smith asked Dowdle if there were
any drugs or weapons in the car, Dowdle stated that there was cocaine underneath the hat.
Dowdle testified that he did not notice the hat on the seat until he was stopped by Deputy
Smith, and he picked up the hat and saw the drugs on the seat before Deputy Smith
5
approached the car. However, Earl testified that he had cleaned out the car before selling it
to Dowdle and that there should not have been anything left in the car.
¶13.
Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the State, we find that there is
sufficient evidence to convict Dowdle of having constructive possession of the cocaine; any
rational juror could have found that the State proved all of the elements of the offense beyond
a reasonable doubt. This argument is without merit.
II. Weight of the Evidence
¶14.
A motion for a new trial challenges the weight of the evidence. Bush, 895 So. 2d at
844 (¶12). This Court will not disturb the trial court’s denial of a motion for a new trial
unless “[the verdict] is so contrary to the overwhelming weight of the evidence that to allow
it to stand would sanction an unconscionable injustice.” Id.
¶15.
Again, Dowdle argues that the cocaine did not belong to him, suggesting that someone
else put the cocaine in the car. Dowdle also contends that the evidence does not support his
conviction because he was cooperative with the police; the drug paraphernalia found in the
car was not hot; and he was not under the influence when he was stopped by Deputy Smith.
¶16.
Dowdle’s arguments go to the weight and credibility of the evidence. It is within the
jury’s province to determine the weight and credibility to give to the evidence and to resolve
all conflicts in the evidence. Davis v. State, 995 So. 2d 767, 774 (¶22) (Miss. Ct. App. 2008).
The jury heard Dowdle’s version of the events; the jury also had the State’s evidence to
consider.
Through the State’s evidence, the jury learned that Dowdle gave a prior
inconsistent statement to the police regarding the hat. During the trial, Dowdle testified that
he did not see the hat until he was stopped by Deputy Smith. However, in his statement to
6
the police, Dowdle said that Earl had given him the hat. Earl testified that he did not give
Dowdle a hat and that he had cleaned out the car before selling it to Dowdle. The jury also
learned that Dowdle had previously been convicted of perjury.
¶17.
Based on the verdict, the jury resolved any conflicts in the evidence in favor of
Dowdle’s conviction.
We find that the weight of the evidence supports the verdict.
Accordingly, we will not disturb the judgment of conviction. This issue is without merit.
¶18. THE JUDGMENT OF THE CIRCUIT COURT OF LOWNDES COUNTY OF
CONVICTION OF POSSESSION OF LESS THAN ONE GRAM OF COCAINE AND
SENTENCE AS A HABITUAL OFFENDER OF EIGHT YEARS IN THE CUSTODY
OF THE MISSISSIPPI DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS, WITHOUT
ELIGIBILITY FOR PROBATION OR PAROLE, AND TO PAY A $20,000 FINE, IS
AFFIRMED. ALL COSTS OF THIS APPEAL ARE ASSESSED TO LOWNDES
COUNTY.
LEE AND MYERS, P.JJ., IRVING, GRIFFIS, BARNES, ISHEE, ROBERTS,
CARLTON AND MAXWELL, JJ., CONCUR.
7
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.
