Innocent Possession - Utah Drug Defense Attorney
Innocent Possession in Controlled Substance Cases - Salt Lake
Defense Lawyer
While the defense of "innocent possession" is not expressly stated in
the Utah criminal code, it is a valid defense that has been
recognized by Utah's appellate courts in drug and
controlled substance
cases. Mounting a successful innocent possession defense requires a
thorough understanding of relevant case law, and can involve
complicated factual issues. When successfully presented, innocent
possession can serve as a complete defense to a drug charge, resulting
in dismissal of charges or a not guilty verdict at
trial.
If you are facing drug possession or
paraphernalia charges, an
experienced
criminal defense attorney can make all the difference for
your case. Based in Salt Lake City, criminal lawyer Stephen Howard has
spent his career defending the rights of clients facing serious
felony
and
misdemeanor offenses in Utah.
Contact us today to arrange for an
initial consultation.
Elements of an Innocent Possession Defense
As a general rule, a prosecutor must prove knowing and intentional
possession of a controlled substance or drug paraphernalia in order to
obtain a conviction in a Utah drug case. But even if the evidence is
sufficient to prove knowing and intentional possession, the principles
of innocent possession can still provide the basis for a complete
defense.

The Utah Supreme Court acknowledged the validity of an innocent
possession defense in the case of
State
v. Miller (2008 UT 61). The defendant in
Miller had been
convicted of two felony counts of possession of a controlled substance.
The defendant appealed the trial court's refusal to give the jury a
requested instruction on innocent possession. The Supreme Court
ultimately acknowledged the validity of an innocent possession defense,
and reversed the convictions.
The instruction originally requested in
Miller had its
origins in a opinion from the Court of Appeals addressing the concept
of innocent possession in the context of a charge for possession of
firearms. The Utah Supreme Court modified the elements of this defense
slightly to fit the context of a controlled substance possession
charge, ultimately holding that the defense of innocent possession
applies if: 1) the controlled substance was attained innocently and
held with no illicit or illegal purpose; and (2) the possession of the
controlled substance was transitory. In defining what is meant by the
term "transitory," the court stated that this requires a defendant to
take adequate measures to rid himself of possession of the
controlled substance as promptly as reasonably possible.
Application of the Innocent Possession Defense
An innocent possession defense can apply in both actual possession and
constructive possession cases. Whether drugs are found in a person's
immediate and actual possession, or police find evidence indicating an
intent and ability to exercise control over the drugs (constructive
possession), principles of innocent possession can provide a complete
defense to a drug charge. Consider the following hypothetical case:
Arthur has suspected for
some time that his son Bob has been experimenting with prescription
pills that Bob has been purchasing from friends he has met at the local
college campus. Arthur arrives home early one day, and finds a variety
of pills in a baggie on the kitchen table. Arthur grabs the pills,
intending to take them to the local police department's medication
disposal program site. While driving to the police station, Arthur is
stopped by a police officer for a minor traffic violation. During the
course of the traffic stop, the officer notices the bag of pills
sitting on the passenger seat. The officer asks Arthur what is in the
bag, and Arthur responds that they are pills he got from his son. The
officer asks Arthur if he has a prescription for the pills, and Arthur
says no. The officer then asks Arthur to step out of the vehicle, and
proceeds to put Arthur in handcuffs. Arthur protests, stating that he
had obtained the pills solely for the purpose of disposing of the
pills. The officer does not believe Arthur, completes the arrest
process by booking Arthur into jail, and submits the case to the
prosecuting attorney's office for the filing of formal felony charges.
This hypothetical presents one of the key issues involved in many
innocent possession cases - the credibility of the defendant. In this
hypothetical, the police officer did not believe Arthur's claim that he
had taken possession of the pills only for the purpose of guaranteeing
proper disposal. But if a jury finds the story credible, or if the jury
is left with reasonable doubt regarding the elements of innocent
possession, a not guilty verdict should be rendered.
Finding a Utah Criminal Defense Lawyer in Salt Lake City
Criminal defense attorney Stephen Howard has a
track record
of achieving real results. He has spent his career defending the
rights of clients facing serious felony and misdemeanor charges. If you
are facing prosecution for drug charges, Stephen Howard has the
skill,
experience, determination, and knowledge necessary to help you
achieve the results you need. Based in Salt Lake City, Mr. Howard
provides legal services to clients throughout Utah.
Contact us today to arrange for an initial confidential consultation.
RELATED CRIMINAL DEFENSE TOPICS