Minors, You Are What You Drink!: Arkansas's New Spin on Minors in ...

More documents

Recommendations

Info

984 ARKANSAS LAW REVIEW [Vol. 65:977 Arkansas courts continue to embrace this general idea of possession. In Stanton v. State, the Arkansas Supreme Court defined possession as the exercise of dominion or control over a substance. 46 In addition, the court stated that “[n]either exclusive nor actual, physical possession is necessary to sustain a charge . . . . Rather, constructive possession is sufficient.” 47 The court went a step further and concluded that a conviction of possession required the prosecutor to show that the defendant cared for, controlled, or managed the substance and knew that the substance was contraband. 48 Several other Arkansas cases reflect Arkansas’s adoption of the principle of constructive possession. 49 Moreover, Arkansas courts have specified that “control and knowledge can be inferred from the circumstances, such as the proximity of the contraband to the accused, the fact that it is in plain view, and the ownership of the property where the contraband is found.” 50 In essence, with respect to Arkansas caselaw, the term “possession” has maintained its common meaning. However, the same does not hold true in regard to Arkansas’s recent change to its minor-inpossession law. After the repeal of the Eighteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution, which prohibited the sale of intoxicating liquors, restrictions on alcohol possession and consumption by minors became the norm throughout the states. 51 Currently, states have laws prohibiting a minor’s 46. 344 Ark. 589, 598, 42 S.W.3d 474, 480 (2001). 47. Id. at 598-99, 42 S.W.3d at 480 (citation omitted). 48. Id. at 599, 42 S.W.3d at 481. 49. See Bailey v. State, 307 Ark. 448, 450-51, 821 S.W.2d 28, 30 (1991); Cary, 259 Ark. at 517, 534 S.W.2d at 235; Dodson v. State, 88 Ark. App. 380, 385, 199 S.W.3d 115, 118 (2004); Abshure v. State, 79 Ark. App. 317, 321-22, 87 S.W.3d 822, 826 (2002) (“Neither exclusive nor actual physical possession, however, is necessary to sustain a charge of possessing contraband; rather, constructive possession is sufficient.”). 50. Nichols v. State, 306 Ark. 417, 419-20, 815 S.W.2d 382, 384 (1991) (holding that the elements of knowledge and control were inferred when the defendant was found sitting at his kitchen table with evidence of the contraband in plain view); see also Plotts v. State, 297 Ark. 66, 72, 759 S.W.2d 793, 796 (1988); Dodson, 88 Ark. App. at 385, 199 S.W.3d at 118; Abshure, 79 Ark. App. at 322, 87 S.W.3d at 826. 51. Jeffrey A. Miron & Elina Tetelbaum, Did the Federal <strong>Drink</strong>ing Age Law Save Lives?, REG., Spring 2009, at 10, 11, available at http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv32n1/v32n1-1.pdf.
2012] MINORS, YOU ARE WHAT YOU DRINK! 985 possession, consumption, internal possession of alcohol, or any combination of the three. 52 These prohibitions apply to all persons younger than twenty-one years of age; however, some states may allow for statutory exceptions. 53 Prior to Act 1152, most minor-in-possession cases in Arkansas employed the same general definition of possession as Arkansas cases dealing with the possession of other illegal contraband. These cases demonstrated that actual possession was not required to prove guilt, and constructive possession could be proven by considering various pieces of circumstantial evidence. 54 In Kastl v. State, a case decided prior to Act 1152, the Arkansas Supreme Court had to determine whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to support the officer’s conclusion that the minor was in constructive possession. 55 The court ultimately held that when evidence of alcohol possession was subject to joint occupancy, the state must provide “additional evidence necessary to link the [minor] to possession.” 56 The appellant, Tracy Kastl, was one of five passengers in a parked vehicle. 57 Two officers on patrol spotted beer cans outside the vehicle and decided to search the vehicle. 58 The officers found a six pack of beer on the floor behind Kastl, and one of the passengers claimed ownership of the beer. 59 The officers then administered a portable breathalyzer test on all of the passengers, the results of which indicated they all had consumed alcohol. 60 However, this evidence was not provided during the proceedings. 61 The officers further 52. Underage <strong>Drink</strong>ing, supra note 6. 53. Id. 54. See DeShields v. State, No. CA 03-1243, 2004 WL 2239403, at *2 (Ark. Ct. App. Oct. 6, 2004); D.C. v. State, No. CA 94-316, 1995 WL 107297, at *2 (Ark. Ct. App. Mar. 8, 1995); B.K.M. v. State, No. CA CR493-1200, 1994 WL 582306, at *2 (Ark. Ct. App. Oct. 19, 1994). 55. 303 Ark. 358, 358, 796 S.W.2d 848, 849 (1990). 56. Id. at 361, 796 S.W.2d. at 850. 57. Id. at 358, 796 S.W.2d. at 849. 58. Id. at 359, 796 S.W.2d. at 849. 59. Id. 60. Kastl, 303 Ark. at 359, 796 S.W.2d at 849. 61. Id.
Page 1 and 2: Minors, Yo
Page 3 and 4: 2012] MINORS, YOU ARE WHAT YOU DRIN
Page 7: 2012] MINORS, YOU ARE WHAT YOU DRIN

Minors, You Are What You Drink!: Arkansas's New Spin on Minors in ...

Create successful ePaper yourself

Delete template?

Save as template?