Minors, You Are What You Drink!: Arkansas's New Spin on Minors in ...
Minors, You Are What You Drink!: Arkansas's New Spin on Minors in ...
Minors, You Are What You Drink!: Arkansas's New Spin on Minors in ...
Create successful ePaper yourself
Turn your PDF publications into a flip-book with our unique Google optimized e-Paper software.
986 ARKANSAS LAW REVIEW [Vol. 65:977<br />
<strong>in</strong>dicated that the smell of <strong>in</strong>toxicat<strong>in</strong>g liquors was <strong>on</strong> the<br />
pers<strong>on</strong> of Kastl. 62<br />
In order to prove c<strong>on</strong>structive possessi<strong>on</strong>, the state<br />
presented evidence that:<br />
(1) [B]eer cans were found ly<strong>in</strong>g [sic] between the<br />
vehicle <strong>in</strong> questi<strong>on</strong> and another parked vehicle; (2) a<br />
six-pack of Coors Light beer was found ly<strong>in</strong>g <strong>in</strong>side the<br />
vehicle <strong>in</strong> the hatch area beh<strong>in</strong>d the appellant, and<br />
accord<strong>in</strong>g to Officer Eisenhower, all the appellant<br />
would have had to have d<strong>on</strong>e was just turn around and<br />
reached and grabbed it [the beer]; and (3) the<br />
appellant had a smell of <strong>in</strong>toxicat<strong>in</strong>g alcohol about her<br />
pers<strong>on</strong>. 63<br />
The court c<strong>on</strong>cluded that such evidence was not enough to<br />
prove Kastl was <strong>in</strong> c<strong>on</strong>structive possessi<strong>on</strong> of the alcohol. 64<br />
In additi<strong>on</strong>, because of the language of the pre-amended<br />
statute, the court refused to give substantial weight to the<br />
fact that the defendant had the smell of <strong>in</strong>toxicat<strong>in</strong>g liquor<br />
<strong>on</strong> her pers<strong>on</strong>. 65<br />
The Kastl court appeared to <strong>in</strong>terpret the pre-amended<br />
statute to mean that possessi<strong>on</strong> was essentially based solely<br />
<strong>on</strong> the evidence that could be found near or around the<br />
m<strong>in</strong>or at the time of the arrest. The court’s analysis<br />
supported the general def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> of possessi<strong>on</strong> as it relates<br />
to a pers<strong>on</strong>’s ability to c<strong>on</strong>trol someth<strong>in</strong>g. If <strong>on</strong>e has an<br />
alcohol bottle around <strong>on</strong>e’s car or next to <strong>on</strong>e’s chair, it is<br />
apparent that the pers<strong>on</strong> could exercise dom<strong>in</strong>i<strong>on</strong> and<br />
c<strong>on</strong>trol over that alcohol. The fact that a pers<strong>on</strong> may have<br />
exhibited signs of <strong>in</strong>toxicati<strong>on</strong> was simply not enough to<br />
f<strong>in</strong>d that the pers<strong>on</strong> actually possessed the alcohol.<br />
However, now that Arkansas’s m<strong>in</strong>or-<strong>in</strong>-possessi<strong>on</strong> statute<br />
explicitly permits evidence of c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong> as amount<strong>in</strong>g to<br />
evidence of possessi<strong>on</strong>, the questi<strong>on</strong> is whether the<br />
amended statute expands the def<strong>in</strong>iti<strong>on</strong> of possessi<strong>on</strong> even<br />
further. For example, under Arkansas’s m<strong>in</strong>or-<strong>in</strong>possessi<strong>on</strong><br />
statute, can the words c<strong>on</strong>sumpti<strong>on</strong>, use, and<br />
62. Id. at 360, 796 S.W.2d. at 850.<br />
63. Id. (<strong>in</strong>ternal quotati<strong>on</strong> marks omitted).<br />
64. Id. at 361, 796 S.W.2d at 850.<br />
65. Kastl, 303 Ark. at 361, 796 S.W.2d at 850.