Utah Criminal Defense Lawyer in Salt Lake - A Proven Record of Results
Utah Constructive Possession Attorney - Salt Lake Drug LawyerUtah laws on constructive possession can apply to cases of possession of a controlled substance, possession of drug paraphernalia, possession of marijuana, and other criminal charges. Under Utah criminal law, constructive possession provides a way for a prosecutor to try to convict you for possession of something that you do not actually possess. But you are not guilty of a crime simply because police find drugs or a paraphernalia item in your car, home, etc. Principles of constructive possession also open the door to potential defenses to Utah drug charges. Having an experienced Utah criminal defense lawyer on your side is critical.
Stephen Howard is an experienced criminal defense lawyer based in Salt Lake City, Utah. He has a track record of achieving not guilty verdicts and dismissals some of the most serious criminal charges on the books in Utah. He has also successfully negotiated pleas in abeyance and misdemeanor offers with probation for many serious felony charges. If you are facing prosecution in a Utah drug case that may involve constructive possession or other complex legal issues, Stephen Howard has the experience, determination, skill, and knowledge necessary to help you achieve the results to need.
Proof of Possession in Utah Drug Crimes ProsecutionsMost drug and drug-related criminal prosecutions in Utah require some proof of possession. Under Utah criminal law, the element of possession can be satisfied either by proof of actual possession, or proof of constructive possession. The penalties and consequences for a drug conviction are the same, whether the case involves actual possession or constructive possession.
The concept of "actual" possession is relatively straightforward. For example, if a person found holding a balloon of heroin in his hand or stuffed in his pocket would likely be considered to be in actual possession of that heroin. (A possible exception to this may be a situation of so-called "innocent" possession.)
The concept of "constructive" possession under Utah law is more complex. To prove constructive possession, a prosecutor must present proof that you had both the ability and the intent to exercise control over the item. The concept of intent in a constructive possession case includes both knowledge of the item's existence, and knowledge of the nature of the item. Consider the following example:
If a baggie of heroin were found sitting on the kitchen table in a person's apartment, a prosecuting attorney may try to argue that the person had constructive possession of the heroin. To meet the necessary burden of proof, the prosecutor would have to prove that the person knew of the presence of the drugs and knew what they were. The prosecutor would also have to prove that the person had the ability and intent to exercise control over them. In other words, the prosecutor would have to prove that the person knew what was in the baggie, and had the intent to do something with the drugs (e.g., use them, take them somewhere, or give them to someone). Mere evidence of the presence of drugs is not sufficient to prove constructive possession.
Possible Defenses Involving Constructive Possession in Utah Drug CasesWhile constructive possession provides a means whereby a prosecutor may convict you for something you did not actually possess, principles of constructive possession can also provide many opportunities to defend against criminal charges.
Consider a hypothetical case where a balloon of heroin is found in the back seat of a person's car. Constructive possession principles open the door for several possible innocent explanations.
The drugs may belong to one of the other passengers. The drugs could have been left in the car by someone who isn't even there when the drugs are found. Even without providing an explanation for how the drugs got into the car, a person charged with a crime is protected by the presumption of innocence. The burden of proof is on the prosecuting attorney to prove beyond a reasonable doubt not just that the drugs were found in the car, but also that the person charged had the ability and intent to exercise control over the drugs.