Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to sustain the charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c), “Possession of marijuana, one ounce or less, 18 years or older.”  Defendant was charged after the Trooper found a glass jar containing a bag of marijuana “resting on the door pocket of the driver’s side in ‘plain view’” in the vehicle operated by defendant.  Defendant argued that he could not be found to be in constructive possession of the evidence because it did not belong to him and he did not know it was in the vehicle, which belonged to his girlfriend.  The Panel explained that to be in possession of a controlled substance an individual must have “intentional control of (the) designated (substance) with knowledge of its nature.”  State v. Gilman, 291 A.2d 425, 430 (R.I. 1972).  The Panel then explained that proving these two elements can be inferred from a totality of the circumstances.  The Panel explained it was proper for the trial magistrate to infer that the defendant knew the substance to be marijuana because he recognized it upon sight and because it was located in a car belonging to a person with whom he had a close relationship, his girlfriend.  Next, the Panel explained it was proper for the trial magistrate to infer that the defendant had intentional control of the evidence because of his close proximity to it in the vehicle.  Accordingly, the Panel held that the trial magistrate properly inferred both elements of constructive possession and sustained the charged violation.