State v. Attardo

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that in prosecution for knowing or intentional possession of controlled substances, knowledge can be proven by evidence of acts, declarations, or conduct of the accused from which the inference may be drawn that the accused knew of the existence of the prohibited substance
• explaining knowledge of an illegal substance may be proved by circumstantial evidence of acts, declarations, or conduct of the accused from which the inference may be drawn that the accused knew of the existence of the prohibited substances
• “[AJffirmative defenses must be established by the party interposing them and by a preponderance of the evidence.”
• \Possession [of a controlled substance] . . . gives rise to an inference of the possessor's knowledge of the character of the substance.\
• when the State makes out a prima facie case under a statute and the defendant claims to fall within an “exception” in the statute, the burden is on the defendant to establish the defense
• in prosecution for knowing or intentional possession of controlled substance, knowledge can be proved by evidence of acts, declarations, or conduct of the accused from which the inference may be drawn that the accused knew of the existence of the prohibited substance

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).