North Carolina Criminal Law: "Constructive Possession" and What it Means
There are many North Carolina Criminal Charges which have 'possession' as one of the elements. As a Raleigh Criminal Lawyer and Durham Criminal Lawyer, I have seen these types of crimes show up in the courthouse. Particularly popular with Police Officers are Possession of Drug Paraphernalia and Possession of Marijuana. These types of crimes, both are level one Misdemeanors, carry with them the requirement that the State prove the Defendant was in possession of the contraband (whether that was the marijuana or some drug paraphernalia). In many cases, the proof of 'possession' is easy to come by as the Defendant will have the drug or other contraband on their person. However, in some instances, a Defendant will not have either a drug or other contraband on their person and still be charged with Possession. In these cases, the concept of "Constructive Possession" comes into play.
Constructive Possession is a legal term which loosely means that the Defendant was in control, or had access to, an area in which the drug or other contraband was found. This concept can get pretty sticky as some instances may have multiple Defendants with access to the same area (interior of an automobile is a good example). Or perhaps the Defendant was in sole control of the area when the Drugs were found, but did not always have exclusive access to that same area (think of your desk at your office, chances are others could access your desk if they wanted to). What does the court do in this situations where possession is not so obvious?
Well, in the North Carolina Supreme Court opinion addressing the case of State v. Matias, the concept of 'constructive possession' is explained. The opinion states that "Constructive possession exists when the defendant, while not having actual possession, ...has the intent and capability to maintain control and dominion over the narcotics." The opinion goes on to say "(w)here such materials are found on the premisses under the control of an accused, this fact, in and of itself, gives rise to an inference of knowledge and possession which may be sufficient to carry the case to the jury on a charge of unlawful possession. However, unless the person has exclusive possession of the place where the narcotics are found, the State must show other incriminating circumstances before constructive possession may be inferred." 556 S.E.2d 270-271.
What this means is, if the Defendant has exclusive control of the area, the court can infer that the Defendant had knowledge and possession of the item. If the Defendant does not have exclusive control of the area, the State may need to prove other circumstantial evidence proving the Defendant's knowledge of the drug and/or contraband as well as possession.
This concept can be tricky to explain and even harder to apply in court. For assistance with your own North Carolina 'possession' charge, speak with a local criminal defense area.
Constructive Possession is a legal term which loosely means that the Defendant was in control, or had access to, an area in which the drug or other contraband was found. This concept can get pretty sticky as some instances may have multiple Defendants with access to the same area (interior of an automobile is a good example). Or perhaps the Defendant was in sole control of the area when the Drugs were found, but did not always have exclusive access to that same area (think of your desk at your office, chances are others could access your desk if they wanted to). What does the court do in this situations where possession is not so obvious?
Well, in the North Carolina Supreme Court opinion addressing the case of State v. Matias, the concept of 'constructive possession' is explained. The opinion states that "Constructive possession exists when the defendant, while not having actual possession, ...has the intent and capability to maintain control and dominion over the narcotics." The opinion goes on to say "(w)here such materials are found on the premisses under the control of an accused, this fact, in and of itself, gives rise to an inference of knowledge and possession which may be sufficient to carry the case to the jury on a charge of unlawful possession. However, unless the person has exclusive possession of the place where the narcotics are found, the State must show other incriminating circumstances before constructive possession may be inferred." 556 S.E.2d 270-271.
What this means is, if the Defendant has exclusive control of the area, the court can infer that the Defendant had knowledge and possession of the item. If the Defendant does not have exclusive control of the area, the State may need to prove other circumstantial evidence proving the Defendant's knowledge of the drug and/or contraband as well as possession.
This concept can be tricky to explain and even harder to apply in court. For assistance with your own North Carolina 'possession' charge, speak with a local criminal defense area.
