Scruggs v. Commonwealth

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that the evidence failed to prove the vehicle's driver knew of the presence of the drugs, which were hidden in a passenger seat
• stating, in reviewing evidence in constructive possession case, “ ‘we cannot ... disregard credible, unimpeached evidence of the [State] which exculpates the defendant and creates a reasonable doubt.’ ” (citation omitted)
• “reject[ing] . . . argument that [accused] must have possessed the cocaine because it was hidden in his automobile,” secreted in a tear in the upholstery
• defendant, owner and driver of car in which drugs found within passenger seat, did not constructively possess drugs because evidence failed to show defendant knew drugs were there
• defendant, owner and driver of car in which drugs found within passenger seat, did not constructively possess drugs because evidence failed to show defendant knew drugs were there

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).