Constructive Possession

Defendant appealed a trial magistrate’s decision sustaining a violation of G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c)(1) (possession of marijuana, 1 ounce or less, 18 years or older). While a state trooper was conducting a traffic stop, Defendant admitted to possessing marijuana, and then Defendant handed the marijuana to the state trooper. At trial, the state trooper testified as to Defendant’s admission as well as to the results of field testing that he had performed. Also, the state presented a forensic scientist for the Rhode Island Department of Health as an expert witness, who testified as to the results of three tests on the substance that Defendant handed to the state trooper. All three tests yielded positive results for marijuana. On appeal, Defendant argued that the state failed to prove, by clear and convincing evidence, that the substance Defendant handed to the state trooper was marijuana.

Here, the Appeals Panel held that the trial magistrate’s decision was supported by legally competent evidence because the record was filled with evidence from which the trial magistrate could form a firm belief that the substance was in fact marijuana. The Panel explicitly declined to rule on “whether the NARK II field test, standing alone, [may be] sufficient to prove that [a] substance is marijuana.” Instead, the Panel relied on the totality of the evidence. First, the state trooper testified that Defendant admitted to possessing marijuana. Second, the state trooper conducted a field test on the substance which yielded a positive result for marijuana. Third, and most importantly, expert scientific testimony supported the trial magistrate’s conclusion that the substance was marijuana. Accordingly, the Appeals Panel affirmed the trial magistrate’s decision.State of Rhode Island v. J.C., No. T18-0008 (April 30, 2019).pdf

Constructive Possession

The Defendant appealed the trial judge’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c) (possession of marijuana, one ounce or less, 18 years or older).  The Defendant while driving was pulled over by a Providence Police Officer.  After discovering the Defendant did not have a valid license, the police officer placed the Defendant in custody and searched the Defendant’s car.  The Officer found a glass jar containing suspected marijuana in the car’s center console.    The Defendant argued that the evidence did not establish that the Defendant was in possession of marijuana.  The Panel noted that “in order to sustain a possession of marijuana violation, the person must have knowingly or intentionally possessed” the marijuana.  Additionally, proof of knowledge can be shown through an individual’s actions or statements, which then must lead to an inference that the individual knew of the marijuana.  See State v. Kaba, 798 A.2d 383, 391-92 (R.I. 2002).  However, “the mere fact that the consignee takes possession of the container would not alone establish guilt of illegal possession or importation of contraband.”  Id.  The Panel found that the Defendant’s knowledge of the substance was not reflected in the record, and thus the charged violation could not be sustained.  The Panel granted the Defendant’s appeal and dismissed the charged violation. 

City of Providence v. M.P., C.A. No. T15-0023 (February 16, 2016).pdf

Constructive Possession

The Town of Richmond appealed the trial magistrate’s decision to dismiss the charged violation of R.I.G.L. 1956 § 21-28-4.01(c)(2)(III) (possession of marijuana, one ounce or less, 18 years or older). The Town argued that the facts at trial demonstrated constructive possession of the marijuana found inside a makeup bag in the back seat of a vehicle in which the Defendant had been a back seat passenger. The Panel noted that proof of constructive possession requires a showing that the defendant knew of the presence of the substance and that he or she intended to exercise control over it. Here, the Corporal testified that he did not see anyone handle the bag, the bag was found near the middle of the back seat of the car, and the bag was sealed and opaque. The Panel held that because the Town did not introduce evidence that the Defendant knew what was in the bag, owned the bag, or intended to exercise control over the bag, the trial magistrate properly dismissed the charged violation for lack of proof.

Town of Richmond v. S. M., C.A. No. T14-0027 (March 30, 2015).pdf

Constructive Possession

The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 §21-28-4.01 (possession of marijuana, one ounce or less, 18 years or older).  The Defendant, a passenger in a car that was lawfully stopped, contended that the marijuana that was found in her purse was the product of an unlawful search.  The Panel held that the Defendant’s Fourth Amendment rights were not violated because the State allows protective pat down searches of passengers and belongings in vehicles that have been lawfully pulled over.  See Wyoming v. Houghton, 526 U.S. 295, 304-305 (1999); State v. Soares, 648 A.2d 804 (R.I. 1994).  The Panel also noted that the Officer searched the Defendant’s purse only after she admitted that she had a knife in the purse and after she consented to the search of her purse.  The Panel further noted that, because the issue was not raised at trial, the Panel therefore lacked the authority to review the issue.  The Panel denied the Defendant’s appeal.

Town of North Kingston v. A.C., C.A. No. T15-0004 (December 15, 2015).pdf

Constructive Possession

The Defendant appealed the trial magistrate’s decision sustaining the charged violation of G.L. 1956 §21-28-4.01 (possession of marijuana, one ounce or less, 18 years or older).  The Defendant contended he was denied his right to an evidentiary hearing under §21-28.6-8, which establishes certain affirmative defenses to a charge of possession of marijuana based upon medical use, and that the trial magistrate misinterpreted the elements of that defense.  Section 21.28.6-8 of the Medical Marijuana Act states when an individual moves for dismissal under the Act, the individual is entitled to an evidentiary hearing to establish that the person has been diagnosed with a medical condition such that “the potential benefits of using marijuana for medical purposes would likely outweigh the health risks for the qualifying patient” and that the defendant “was in possession of a quantity of marijuana that was not more than what is permitted under this chapter to ensure the uninterrupted availability of marijuana for the purpose of alleviating the person’s medical condition or symptoms associated with the medical condition.” The Panel found that the Defendant was given an evidentiary hearing when the trial magistrate determined that the Defendant did not meet the necessary requirements under §21-28.6-8. The Panel, citing the Rhode Island Supreme Court’s decision in State v. DeRobbio, 62 A.3d 1113, 1116 (R.I. 2013), upheld the trail magistrate’s holding that the elements of the affirmative defense were not met because the Defendant did not possess “a registry identification card” issued by the Department of Health, a requirement that cannot be found either in the statute or in the Supreme Court’s decision in DeRobbio.  The Panel found the trial magistrate applied the Act correctly and that the decision was based on legally competent evidence.  Therefore, the Panel denied the Defendant’s appeal.

Town of North Kingston v. D.W., C.A. No. T15-0003 (December 17, 2015).pdf

Constructive Possession

State of Rhode Island v. Daniel Delano, C.A. No. T13-0055 (March 3, 2014).pdf