State v. Chekanow

Despite Defendants’ nonexclusive control over a portion of the property where twenty-two marijuana plants were found growing, the State presented sufficient evidence of other incriminating circumstances to allow the case to go to the jury.The Supreme Court reversed the decision of the court of appeals, which reversed Defendants’ convictions for manufacturing marijuana, possession with intent to manufacture, sell or deliver marijuana, and felony possession of marijuana. The court of appeals determined that Defendants did not have exclusive possession of the potion of the property where the marijuana plants were found, and therefore, the State was required to show evidence of other incriminating circumstances to survive Defendants’ motion to dismiss for insufficiency of the evidence. The court of appeals concluded that the State failed to show other incriminating circumstances. The Supreme Court disagreed, holding that, notwithstanding Defendants’ nonexclusive possession of the location in which the contraband was found, there was evidence from which a jury could reasonably infer that Defendants knowingly possessed the marijuana plants. View "State v. Chekanow" on Justia Law