This content was written for Cale Law Office
If you’ve been charged with possession of marijuana or any other drug crime, call Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale at 918-277-4800 to schedule your free initial consultation. With your consultation, you’ll get a free defense strategy plan.
In addition to possession, the specific intent the defendant to distribute or dispense marijuana must be established for session with intent to distribute. Whether or not there was a specific intent to distribute the drug is a question of fact to be determined by the jury. In many instances the sheer quantity of a substance found, as well as the presence of paraphernalia for packaging, is deemed sufficient circumstantial evidence of intent to allow the case to go forward to the jury.
In 1990, the United States Supreme Court held that the free exercise clause of the First Amendment does not protect religiously motivated behavior that conflicts with a neutral law of general applicability. Therefore, a journey will not receive any instruction for possession of marijuana for religious use.
Basically, the crime of cultivating a controlled dangerous substance is about cultivating producing or growing a plantar substance that is on under statute or controlled by the defendant. This would include the plants grow to green pounces, window boxes, pots, rooftop garden plants grown the ground.
Marijuana is deemed to be a controlled dangerous substance. Marijuana is defined as all parts of the plant Canada’s city will, whether growing or not, proceeds from the plant extracted from a plant in every compound, manufacture, salt, derivative, mixture, or preparation of the plant. However, it does not include the mature stocks plant, fiber produced from such talks, while her cake made from the seed of the plant, or any other compound mixture or preparation from the mature stocks.
Person does not have to have possession of the leaf or flour of marijuana to be guilty possession. Even the smallest component of a canvas plant is sufficient to establish possession. In one case defendant argued that the state had failed to sustain its burden of proof charging offenses related to marijuana because the expert witness at trial established only that THC was fired substance within the defendant’s possession. The expert did not identify the substance’s cannabis city. However, the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals rejected this argument, stating that so long as the state establishes that the substance in question is a prescribed portion of the plant canvas, and further establishes that the substance tests positive for the presence of THC, the states evidence is sufficient to sustain its burden of proof.
Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale explains that the law recognizes two kinds of possession. The two types are actual position and constructive possession. Someone who knowingly has direct physical control of roofing in a given time is an actual possession of. However, the person who is not an actual physical possession, but knowingly has the power and the attention given time to exercise dominion or control over thing, is at that time and constructive possession of it. Possession of something that is illegal is not only the actual physical custody of the substance but also the constructive possession of it.
The law also recognizes the possession may be sole or joint. In other words, possession does not need to be exclusive. If one person alone has actual or constructive possession of the thing, the possession sole. If two or more persons center actual or constructive possession of the thing, then their possession is joint. A person may be deemed to be joint possession of a controlled dangerous substance which is in the actual physical custody of another person if he willfully and knowingly shares with other person the right to control the disposition or use of the substance.
However, mere proximity to the drug is not sufficient proof of possession. There must be additional evidence of the defendant’s knowledge and control. Knowledge control may be established by circumstantial evidence. It’s important to note each fact necessary to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, sent Tulsa criminal defense attorney Stephen Cale.
Guilty knowledge is rarely susceptible to direct proof. The fact that a defendant knows of the presence of drugs have the right to control his disposition use be established by circumstantial evidence. However, a person cannot be c in 2004 Yokohama Court of Criminal Appeals abolished the reasonable hypothesis test. Convicted upon circumstantial evidence and the proof does not exclude every reasonable hypothesis but that of guilt, and proof amounting only to a strong suspicion or mirror probability is insufficient. Circumstantial evidence that shows that a drug was found on persons possessed by the defendant under his exclusive control allows an inference of knowledge control of that drug. In such case is sufficient to take the case to the jury.
One can be charged also with the crime of maintaining a place where controlled dangerous substances are kept. In this instance, a person who knowingly or intentionally keeps or maintains some kind of store, dwelling, or building where illegal drugs are used or sold is guilty. Keeping maintaining as defined in the law requires the defendant to have control, ownership, or management of the structure or vehicle. There must be more than just isolated activity. Instead, the term implies some kind of habitual activity. Stoners should contact the best Tulsa criminal defense attorney.
A conviction for the crime of maintaining a place where controlled dangerous substances are kept requires a substantial purpose. However, it does not necessarily require a sole purpose of the residence or structure or vehicle is for selling her using illegal drugs. The mere possession of the limited qualities of a controlled dangerous substance by the person keeping maintaining the residence, structure, illegal drugs are kept.
Trafficking in illegal drugs involves knowingly distributing or manufacturing a specified amount of drugs that are listed in title 63. It can also mean possessing a specified amount controlled dangerous substance with intent to manufacture a specified amount of drugs that is illegal. Additionally, it can be using or soliciting the use of the services of a person under 18 to distribute or manufacture a specific amount of controlled dangerous substance.