This content was written for Cale Law Office

Hire an aggressive lawyer for your criminal case. Call the Cale law office at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. You’ll also get a free defense strategy plan designed just for your case from Tulsa criminal attorney Stephen Cale.

Defendant was found guilty by a jury of unlawful distribution of marijuana. He was sentenced to two years in prison and fined $500. The he state’s witness testified that he was a deputy sheriff working as undercover agent. He bought some marijuana from the defendant. The agent said that he was in the company of an informer man’s car which the man was driving. A part of the right of defendants pick up Sanchez was sitting the passenger seat of the defendants pick up and McDonald asked him if he any lids for sale. A Butler stated that Sanchez turned been conferred with the defendant then told McDonald that they had sold all they had except for one that they want to keep it. After a little discussion Butler said that he would pay $12. That then went to a Kentucky fried chicken parking lot. He got the car went over to the right side the pickup. The man got up back in marijuana.

It’s the duty of a defense attorney as an officer of the court a the trial judge preventing error by offering objections to improper instructions and submitting proposed instructions to the court. If you believe the defendant, then the evidence shows that he merely happened to be where the action was without knowledge the presence of marijuana and without controller dominion over it. Such evidence will not support a conviction for possession of marijuana.

Have trial officer Sam testified that on the evening of September 7, he stopped a pickup truck because it was weaving erratically. The officer identified defendant is the driver of the truck and another man is the only passenger. After reviewing the drivers license, the officer asked him if he was okay and whether there is something wrong with a friend of his truck. The driver replied that the front it was out of line and needed work. The officer asked of the men had been drinking. The driver replied that they had been drinking milk. That’s when a man reached into his left pocket, picked up a brown paper bag, handed him and it to the man, who in turn held out the window for the officer to inspect. Within the bag, the officer found the parsley, and fruit pie, the milk carton, and a plastic baggie containing marijuana. The defendant made a huge mistake by consenting to the search of his truck.

The defendant testified that there were several girls near the truck of time that two of them and entered the truck. They left it when they saw a police officer approaching the group. He denied any knowledge of the marijuana found in the truck said that at the time he put the back seat of the vehicle, it handling the remains of his meal. He also denied ownership of the cigarette papers which the officer had fell within the truck.

Another defendant took the stand testified that he waited outside the truck in the parking lot. He said that there were three girls to be close to the truck the time listening to music from inside. He stated that when the girls were standing so close to the passenger door that he had asked her to move so that he could put his parents of the truck. As he was walking with the truck so told him the two men were approaching. The person also said the police could see an open container of beer within the pickup truck that was against the law. The man testified that he turned back toward the truck at the time to move the beer can. He said that it appeared that when he turned around on the girls was getting out of the truck. The best Tulsa criminal defense attorney will fight to get you the results you want.

State called an officer as a rebuttal this. The officer testified that he was employed as a security guard on the date at issue. The city was to prevent people from gathering in the parking lot request them to leave go inside the bowling alley and on that night stand and observed an old model truck in the parking lot. He said that the passengers of the truck talked with passengers of a car for short time in a mother truck pulled up and never signed car. That’s when five girls got out and walked towards the truck. The officer standing walked with a group sentenced to told that they had to leave the premises or go inside the bowling alley. At that time the truck drove away. He said he sold the the pickup truck during this time with the whole incident took longer than three minutes.

The defendant argued on appeal that his conviction was reversed because the states evidence was insufficient to warrant verdict that he was in possession of marijuana found in the truck for which he was a passenger. Has been often held position does not need to be actual physical custody of a controlled substance. It is sufficient that the state prove the accused was a constructive possession of the drug by showing that he had knowledge of its presence and the power and control its disposition or use, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.

Additionally, possession does not need to be exclusive. A person can be deemed to be joint possession of a drug which is physical custody of a companion if that person willfully and knowingly shares with the other the right to control drug. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals has repeatedly held that of mere proximity to the drug is not sufficient. One of the case is tried for joint possession, proof that the defendant was present at a place where drugs were being used or possessed is insufficient to convict possession. The must be additional evidence of knowledge and control.

Guilty knowledge is really rarely susceptible to direct proof. The fact that the accused the presence of the drug and have the right to control its use may be est. by circumstantial evidence. Nonetheless, the law is that a conviction upon circumstantial evidence cannot be sustained if the proof does not exclude reasonable hypothesis that the guilt. Proof the mounting point to a strong suspicion or mirror probability is not sufficient. However, circumstantial evidence that shows that a drug) permits an inference of knowledge and control the substance which is sufficient to carry the case to the jury. Finding the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney is just a phone call away.

On the other hand, a person is present on premises where the drug is found but does not have exclusive access, use, or possession of the premises, it may not be inferred they had knowledge of the presence of the drug and had control of the unless there are additional independent factors showing his knowledge and control. Additional independent factors may consist of incriminating statements made by the defendant, incriminating conduct on his part, prior police investigation, or any other circumstance from which possession may be fairly inferred, said Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.