## Facts

- Charlotte K. Porter and her husband were jointly indicted for possession of cocaine and possession of marijuana for other than personal use under Alabama law; their cases were severed and she was tried alone.
- Officers executed a search warrant at Porter’s residence and found marijuana plants and marijuana in multiple locations, plus equipment for growing marijuana.
- In Porter’s bedroom area, officers found a bag of cocaine in a bedroom closet and drug paraphernalia with cocaine residue.
- Officers also found items commonly associated with drug distribution, including inositol (cutting agent), electronic scales, and packaging materials.
- A notepad listing names, dates, weights, dollar amounts, and “paid” markings was found, along with four $100 bills under a mattress.
- Porter and her husband were separated; he did not live at the residence but paid rent and utilities and visited frequently.
- The bedroom where cocaine was found was occupied by Porter, and her clothing was in the closet.
- Porter told officers the marijuana was hers and that she grew it for personal use; she made no statement about the cocaine and did not testify at trial.

## Issues

1. Whether the evidence was sufficient to prove Porter’s knowing possession (including constructive possession) of cocaine and marijuana despite her estranged husband’s financial support and visits.
2. Whether the trial court committed reversible error by instructing on accomplice liability by omission—failure to prevent an offense where the defendant has a legal duty to prevent it—under Ala. Code § 13A-2-23(3).

## Decision

- The Alabama Court of Criminal Appeals affirmed the convictions and sentences.
- The court held the evidence supported the jury’s finding of constructive possession of cocaine and marijuana.
- The court held the accomplice-liability “legal duty to prevent” instruction did not warrant reversal on these facts.

## Legal Principles

- Constructive possession may be inferred from evidence that the accused had dominion and control over the premises where contraband was found, plus circumstances indicating knowledge of the contraband.
- Exclusive or primary control over the living area where drugs and paraphernalia are located can support an inference of knowledge and possession, even if another person pays household expenses or is a frequent visitor.
- Evidence such as scales, cutting agents, packaging materials, cash, and records of transactions may support an inference of knowing possession and involvement beyond mere presence.
- Under Ala. Code § 13A-2-23(3), accomplice liability may attach when a person with a legal duty to prevent an offense fails to act with intent to promote or assist the offense.
- An arguably unnecessary or ill-fitting jury instruction is not reversible error absent prejudice; where the evidence supports direct liability, an accomplice-liability instruction may be treated as harmless.

## Conclusion

The court affirmed Porter’s drug-possession convictions, concluding that the drugs and drug-related items found in her bedroom and residence, along with her control of the premises and admission to growing marijuana, allowed the jury to find constructive possession, and that the challenged accomplice-liability-by-omission instruction did not require reversal because it did not prejudice the verdict in light of the strong evidence of direct possession.


Porter v. State, 570 So. 2d 823 (Ala. Crim. App. 1990)