State v. Brietag

How courts have described this case

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

• recognizing that “[w]here drugs are found on premises that a 13 defendant does not exclusively possess, the fact that they are found in close proximity 14 to his personal belongings may be a circumstance sufficient to link him with the 15 possession of those drugs”
• stating that “evidence indicating sole occupancy of a bedroom 18 supports a logical inference of control and knowledge of the room’s contents by the 19 usual occupier” (emphasis, internal quotation marks, and citation omitted)
• dismissing possession charge when no additional circumstances linked the accused to drugs
• “Where a defendant is not in exclusive possession of the premises on 12 which drugs are found, an inference of constructive possession cannot be drawn 13 unless there are incriminating statements or circumstances tending to support the 14 inference.” (emphasis added.)

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).