Drug Crimes Case Study
Whether constructive possession of drugs in a shared residence was proven beyond a reasonable doubt.
The court reversed the conviction, finding that the Commonwealth had not proven beyond a reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge of and dominion and control over the drugs found in a shared residence. The court held that mere proximity to drugs is insufficient to establish constructive possession.
Constructive possession requires proof that the defendant knew the drugs were present and had dominion and control over them. In shared residence cases — where multiple people have access to the area where drugs are found — the prosecution must prove that the drugs belonged to the defendant specifically. D.J. Rivera challenges constructive possession in every applicable case.
This case involves § 18.2-250 of the Virginia Code. For a full analysis of how this statute applies to your case, consult with D.J. Rivera.
D.J. Rivera applies the lessons of cases like this one to defend clients throughout Richmond and Northern Virginia. Free consultation available 24/7.
Get Your Free Consultation