With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". portion of D-9, and would not submit an amended version, upon the lower court’s request. The defense counsel made this choice without objection. Townsend is therefore proeedurally barred from raising this issue at this point when he did not do so at trial or in his motion for new trial. Davis v. State, 660 So.2d 1228 (Miss.1995); Foster v. State, 639 So.2d 1263 (Miss.1994); Box v. State, 610 So.2d 1148 (Miss.1992). This Court agrees with the trial court’s offer to amend the instruction, which was declined by defense counsel. This Court has found previously that “when contraband is found on premises owned by the Defendant, a presumption of constructive possession arises.” Cunningham v. State, 583 So.2d 960, 962 (Miss.1991); see also Esparaza v. State, 595 So.2d 418, 426 (Miss.1992) (<HOLDING>) (emphasis added). Thus, this Court concludes

A: holding that proof of the discovery of illegal drugs in plain view in the presence or two or more joint occupants of the premises is sufficient to support a conviction for constructive possession
B: holding when drugs are found on premises exclusive control provides significant proof of constructive possession
C: holding evidence insufficient for conviction for possession of controlled dangerous substances when the drugs were not found on the person of or in the same room as the defendant but were only found on other persons on the premises
D: holding evidence insufficient to establish defendant had physical or constructive possession of heroin when no drugs were found on his person and the only drugs discovered on the premises which he shared with the codefendant were secreted out of plain view
B.