22.10.2013 Views

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 ...

SHOW MORE
SHOW LESS

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.

Hooray! Your file is uploaded and ready to be published.

Saved successfully!

Ooh no, something went wrong!