State v. Fox (1985)
Supreme Court of Utah
FACTS:* 1. Gary (D) and Clive Fox (D) were charged with possession and intent to distribute and production of a controlled substance in violation of U.C.A 153 § 58-37-8(1).
2. D. found guilty as charged by District Court.
3.On appeal, the defendants renew their claim that there was insufficient evidence to prove that they grew marijuana and that the marijuana found in the residence belonged to them or was for distribution.
4. The Utah Supreme Court, affirmed Gary Fox’s conviction while reversing the conviction of Clive Fox.
QUESTION OF LAW: Whether evidence that people owned property where marijuana plants were found, and where some level of occupancy is established, is sufficient to support a conviction for possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute. This requires that the defendant knowingly and intentionally posses the controlled substance, and that the defendant intend to distribute it.(MBAH 22)
REASONING: These facts alone are not enough to establish constructive possession. These were the only facts relevant to Clive’s case, and thus the evidence presented at trial, without anything more, is not sufficient to warrant his conviction. There was other evidence pertaining to Gary, however, which was sufficient to establish constructive possession. Gary had marijuana paraphernalia in what was presumably his bedroom. The house was in his name, and thus his non-exclusive possession and control combined with the evidence found in his bedroom was enough to establish a foundation for his conviction. The evidence connected with Gary was enough to form a reasonable inference that he had the intent to grow or posses the marijuana.(MBAH 24)
RULE OF LAW: A conviction for a possession of a controlled substance with intent to distribute requires proof of two elements 1) that the defendant knowingly and intentionally possessed...