Clarence Williams, alias v. State

Summary

The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals held that the State failed to present sufficient evidence that Clarence Williams knowingly possessed amphetamines or marijuana found in another person's apartment. The court reversed the convictions and remanded for a new trial, concluding that mere presence and the surrounding circumstances did not establish actual or constructive possession at the time the motion to exclude was made.

Holdings

1. The State's evidence was insufficient to establish that Williams possessed the marijuana or amphetamines because it did not show actual possession, knowledge of the drugs, ownership or control of the apartment, or the attributes necessary for constructive possession.
2. In reviewing whether the trial court properly denied the motion to exclude, the appellate court could consider only the evidence presented before the motion was made; testimony introduced afterward could not be used to support the verdict or cure the State's failure to establish a prima facie case.
3. The prosecutor's challenged comments were within the range of permissible argument because the evidence supported reasonable inferences concerning the quantity of drugs and the apartment's circumstances.

Questions Presented

1. Whether the State presented sufficient evidence of Williams's actual or constructive possession of the marijuana and amphetamines to withstand his motion to exclude.
2. Whether evidence introduced after the State rested and after the motion to exclude was made could be considered in determining whether the motion should have been granted.
3. Whether the prosecutor's closing argument contained improper and prejudicial remarks.

Disposition

reversed_and_remanded