Which of the following statements most accurately describes when a defendant may be held criminally liable for possession of contraband that is not found on the defendant's person?
Mere proximity to contraband, without proof of knowledge or control, is sufficient to establish constructive possession.
A defendant may be convicted if the defendant alone has the right to enter the premises where contraband is stored, even if unaware of the contraband's presence.
Actual, physical custody of the contraband at the moment of arrest is always required for a possession conviction.
Liability is established if the defendant knows the contraband is present and has both the power and intent to exercise control over it, even though it is not on the defendant's person.
A defendant may be convicted on a theory of constructive possession when the prosecution proves that the defendant (1) knew of the contraband's presence and (2) had both the power and intent to exercise dominion or control over it. Actual, physical custody is therefore unnecessary. Option 2 states the correct rule. Option 1 is wrong because physical custody is not required. Option 3 is wrong because proximity without knowledge or control is not enough. Option 4 fails because awareness of the contraband is an essential element-control alone will not suffice.
Ask Bash
Bash is our AI bot, trained to help you pass your exam. AI Generated Content may display inaccurate information, always double-check anything important.
What is constructive possession?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
How does knowledge factor into possession charges?
Open an interactive chat with Bash
What is the difference between actual and constructive possession?