With regard to possession of a controlled substance, this Court previously has held that "the statute requires no minimum amount[, but] any identifiable amount, however slight, constitute[s] a crime." Hampton v. State, 498 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1986) (noting that majority of jurisdictions under the Uniform Controlled Substances Act hold any amount sufficient). Thus, possession of a mere "trace" amount of illegal drugs is sufficient to support a conviction.
The law in Mississippi is that any identifiable amount of a controlled substance, however slight, is sufficient to support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance. Hampton v. State, 498 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1986). "[T]he statute requires no minimum amount in order to constitute a crime."
See, e.g., State v. Murphy, 117 Ariz. 57, 570 P.2d 1070, 1075 (1977) ( en banc) (citations omitted); People v. Carrasco, 118 Cal.App.3d 936, 173 Cal.Rptr. 688, 695 (1981) (citations omitted); Carmouche v. State, 540 S.W.2d 701, 702 (Tex.Crim.App. 1976) (citation omitted).Lausterer v. State, 693 P.2d 887, 890 (Alaska Ct.App. 1985) ("a person who sells or possesses for sale any amount of cocaine โ regardless of how large or small โ is subjected to conviction and punishment for a class B felony"); State v. McCarthy, 25 Conn. App. 624, 595 A.2d 941, 943 (1991) (citation omitted), cert. denied, 220 Conn. 925, 598 A.2d 366 (1991); Jones v. State, 589 So.2d 1001, 1002 (Fla.Dist.Ct.App. 1991) (citations omitted); State v. Brown, 245 Kan. 604, 783 P.2d 1278, 1285 (1989) (citations omitted): Commonwealth v. Shivley, 814 S.W.2d 572, 574 (Ky. 1991) (citation omitted); State v. McGowaa, 541 A.2d 1301, 1302 (Me. 1988); Hampton v. State, 498 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1986) (citation omitted); State v. Pike, 134 N.H. 690, 597 A.2d 1071, 1072 (1991); State v. Brown, 188 N.J. Super. 656, 458 A.2d 165, 173 (Ct. Law Div. 1983) (citation omitted); People v. Mizell, 72 N.Y.2d 651, 536 N.Y.S.2d 21, 23, 532 N.E.2d 1249, 1251 (1988) (citations omitted); State v. Daniels, 26 Ohio App.3d 101, 498 N.E.2d 227, 228 (1985); State v. Goldsmith, 301 S.C. 463, 392 S.E.2d 787, 788 (1990) (citations omitted), cert. denied sub nom. Witkowski v. Goldsmith, ___ U.S. ___, 113 S.Ct. 3020, 125 L.Ed.2d 709 (1993); State v. Warner, 788 P.2d 1041, 1043 (Utah Ct.App. 1990) (citation omitted); State v. Williams, 62 Wn. App. 748, 815 P.2d 825, 826 (1991) (citation omitted), rev. denied, 118 Wn.2d 1019, 827 P.2d 1012 (1992).VI.
.), cert. denied, 382 So.2d 1158 (1980); Moreau v. State, 588 P.2d 275 (Alaska 1978); Fagin v. People, 484 P.2d 1216 (Colo. 1971); State v. McCarthy, 25 Conn. App. 624, 595 A.2d 941 (App.Ct.), appeal denied, 598 A.2d 366 (1991); State v. Eckroth, 238 So.2d 75 (Fla. 1970); Scott v. State, 170 Ga. App. 409, 317 S.E.2d 282, aff'd, 253 Ga. 147, 317 S.E.2d 830 (1984); State v. Vance, 61 Haw. 291, 602 P.2d 933 (1979); People v. McNeely, 99 Ill. App.3d 1021, 55 Ill.Dec. 321, 426 N.E.2d 296 (1981); Schwartz v. State, 177 Ind. App. 258, 379 N.E.2d 480 (1978); State v. Brown, 245 Kan. 604, 783 P.2d 1278 (1989); Commonwealth v. Shivley, 814 S.W.2d 572 (Ky. 1991); State v. McGowan, 541 A.2d 1301 (Me. 1988); Frasher v. State, 8 Md. App. 439, 260 A.2d 656, cert. denied, 400 U.S. 959, 91 S.Ct. 360, 27 L.Ed.2d 269 (1970); People v. Hunten, 115 Mich. App. 167, 320 N.W.2d 68 (1982); State v. Siirila, 292 Minn. 11, 193 N.W.2d 467 (1971), cert. denied, 408 U.S. 925, 92 S.Ct. 2503, 33 L.Ed.2d 336 (1972); Hampton v. State, 498 So.2d 384 (Miss. 1986); State v. Willers, 794 S.W.2d 315 (Mo.Ct.App. 1990); State v. Brown, 195 Neb. 321, 237 N.W.2d 861 (1976); Sheriff, Clark County v. Benson, 89 Nev. 160, 509 P.2d 554 (1973); State v. Pike, 134 N.H. 690, 597 A.2d 1071 (1991); State v. Humphreys, 54 N.J. 406, 255 A.2d 273 (1969); State v. Grijalva, 85 N.M. 127, 509 P.2d 894 (Ct.App. 1973); People v. Mizell, 72 N.Y.2d 651, 536 N.Y.S.2d 21, 532 N.E.2d 1249 (1988); State v. Thomas, 20 N.C. App. 255, 201 S.E.2d 201 (1973), cert. denied, 284 N.C. 622, 202 S.E.2d 277 (1974); State v. Daniels, 26 Ohio App.3d 101, 498 N.E.2d 227 (1985); Spriggs v. State, 511 P.2d 1139 (Okla.Crim.App. 1973); State v. Forrester, 29 Or. App. 409, 564 P.2d 289 (1977); State v. Warner, 788 P.2d 1041 (Utah Ct.App. 1990); Robbs v. Commonwealth, 211 Va. 153, 176 S.E.2d 429 (1970); State v. Williams, 62 Wn. App. 748, 815 P.2d 825 (1991), review denied, 118 Wn.2d 1019, 827 P.2d 1012 (1992); State v. Dodd, 28 Wis.2d 643, 137 N.W.2d 465 (1965), overruled on other grounds by
We find further support for this interpretation in the decisions of a majority of other courts faced with similar statutes. State v. Brown, 245 Kan. 604, 613-14, 783 P.2d 1278, 1285 (1989) (characterizing "any amount" interpretation as majority view); Hampton v. State, 498 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1986) (any identifiable amount, however slight, constitutes the crime of possession); People v. Mizell, 72 N.Y.2d 651, 654, 532 N.E.2d 1249, 1251, 536 N.Y.S.2d 21, 23 (1988) (unusable amounts within purview of possession statute); see also Note, Criminal Liability For Possession of Nonusable Amounts of Controlled Substances, 77 COLUM. L. REV. 596, 605-12 (1977). Consequently, we hold that possession of any quantity of a controlled substance, sufficient to permit proper identification, is prohibited by RSA 318-B:2, I (Supp. 1990).
See Jones v. State, 523 So.2d 957, 958-59 (Miss. 1988); Hampton v. State, 498 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1986); Poole v. State, 291 So.2d 723, 726 (Miss. 1974).
Considering possession of a controlled substance, our supreme court has held โthe statute requires no minimum amount[, and] ... any identifiable amount, however slight, constitute [s] a crime.โ Hampton v. State, 498 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss.1986). To sustain a conviction for drug possession, โthere must be sufficient facts to warrant a finding that defendant was aware of the presence and character of the particular substance and was intentionally and consciously in possession of it.โ
This Court has found that section 41-29-139 does not specify a minimum amount of cocaine in order to constitute a crime. Carroll v. State, 755 So.2d 483, 485(5) (Miss.Ct.App. 1999) (finding that cocaine residue found on syringes provided a sufficient basis for the conviction of possession of cocaine) (citing Hampton v. State, 498 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1986)). We have found no authority indicating that the inclusion of the weight of cocaine in a jury instruction constitutes error, and Jenkins has not presented any evidence that the jury was prejudiced by the inclusion.
In the case at hand, the facts show that Beard was the driver of the truck pulled over by Deputy Penn. Illegal drugs were found within arm's reach and visible to the driver when entering or exiting the truck, although they were not visible from the driver's seat. Possession of a mere "trace" is sufficient to support conviction. Hampton v. State, 498 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1986). Residue on the cut straw indicated that the straw had been used to sniff methamphetamine, and it could be inferred by the jury that Beard had used the drug on his way from Texas to Alabama.
The Mississippi Supreme Court has made clear that, while there is authority from other jurisdictions supporting Carroll's rationale, the majority rule and the law of Mississippi under Miss. Code Ann. ยง 41-29-139 is that "the statute requires no minimum amount in order to constitute a crime." Hampton v. State, 498 So.2d 384, 386 (Miss. 1986). Edwina Ard's forensic analysis identified cocaine residue from the syringes in Carroll's possession at the time of the traffic stop. Clearly, this forensic analysis and its results provided sufficient basis for the charge of and subsequent conviction of possession of a controlled substance.