The idea behind this defense is that you can’t be charged for possession of contraband if you have constructive possession of it, i.e. a legitimate right to possess it. This is an extension of the “exception” defense, but the defense is more complicated. There are four elements to the constructive possession defense: (a) possession, (b) control, (c) authority, and (d) knowledge.
The first defense, the “constructive possession defense,” was designed to protect law enforcement from prosecution for drug possession charges. The idea is that if a defendant had constructive possession of narcotics (and it was not physically available for him to possess them) and it was not possessed by the defendant himself, then the defendant could not be charged with possession of narcotics. This was upheld by the Supreme Court in Smith v. Maryland and the Fifth Circuit in United States v. W.R. Grace & Co.
While the constructive possession defense only covers narcotics possession charges, the idea is that if a defendant has possession of a controlled substance, but the controlled substance is not in the same place or container as the defendant, then it can be considered constructive possession.
The original premise of the defense was that the defendant’s possession of a controlled substance is a form of constructive possession. But this can also be shown by proving that the defendant had a physical possession of his controlled substance. In that case, he can be charged with possession of a controlled substance.
This is a controversial issue for two reasons. First, possession of a controlled substance can be both physical and mental. If the defendant is charged with possession of a controlled substance, the burden of proof is on the prosecution. The prosecution must prove to the jury beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had a mental state, such as intent, knowledge, or recklessness, which makes the defendant criminally responsible.
But if the defendant makes a good case that possession of the controlled substance was a mistake or accident, the prosecution will be unable to show that the defendant intended to possess the drugs.
In a constructive possession case, the prosecution has to prove that the defendant had the intent to possess a controlled substance. But the defendant is not held to the same standard of proof as other suspects. If the defendant claims he accidentally dropped the drugs on the floor, the prosecution must have a reason to doubt his claim, and the defense can make a good case that he was more likely to have dropped the drugs than not.
The defense is allowed to argue that the drugs were merely a vehicle for some other drug. You could have been carrying a lighter, but if you were, it would be reasonable to assume that you were carrying it for someone else. It doesn’t matter if the drugs are really yours or if you have any other legitimate use for them.
The defense is allowed to argue that the drugs were merely a vehicle for some other drug. You could have been carrying a lighter, but if you were, it would be reasonable to assume that you were carrying it for someone else. It doesnt matter if the drugs are really yours or if you have any other legitimate use for them.
How many times have you heard that defense before, but never really thought about the defense’s possible weaknesses? The defense is a very good one in theory, but it’s actually a very bad one in practice. It’s a defense that tries to use the premise that someone else had it before you, but the idea of possession is too complicated.
