State v. Andry
State v. Andry, 255 So. 2d 81 (La. 1971).
Cited by
- Connell v. Connell 331 So. 2d 4 La. 1976
- State v. Stephenson 291 So. 2d 767 La. 1974
- State v. Crockett 263 So. 2d 6 La. 1972
- State v. Dobard 263 So. 2d 16 La. 1972
- State v. Williams 262 So. 2d 507 La. 1972
- State v. Hall 262 So. 2d 498 La. 1972
- State v. Morris 256 So. 2d 434 La. 1972
- State v. Dauzat 255 So. 2d 84 La. 1971
- State v. Fairley 255 So. 2d 83 La. 1971
Authorities cited
Identified automatically; this list may not be exhaustive.
- State v. Smith 257 La. 1109
Opinion text
PER CURIAM. The defendant, Beraid H. Andry, was tried by a jury and convicted of the crime of possessing a narcotic drug, to wit: several capsules containing an opium derivative in violation of R.S. 40:962. He was sentenced to serve ten years in the State penitentiary at hard labor. On this appeal the accused is relying on two bills of exceptions to obtain a reversal of the conviction. The two bills present the same question, i. e., whether there is evidence in this record tending to show that the defendant had constructive possession of the capsules. By these bills, Andry contends there was no showing by the State of constructive or actual possession by himself of said evidence. We find no error in the trial court’s finding that the defendant did have constructive possession by virtue of the fact he had guilty knowledge of how many capsules were in the residence and that his knowledge connected him with the exhibits. State v. Smith, 257 La. 1109 , 245 So.2d 327 (1971). *81 For these reasons, we find the defendant-appellant’s contentions to be without merit. The conviction and sentence are affirmed.