Regan v. State
350 P.3d 702, 2015 Wyo. LEXIS 70, 2015 WY 62 (2015)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To prove constructive possession of a controlled substance, the prosecution must show beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused had both the power and the intention to exercise dominion and control over the substance. Mere presence in a place where drugs are found, even with knowledge and ownership of the vehicle, is insufficient to establish the requisite intent to control, particularly in a joint occupancy situation.
Facts:
- Patrick J. Regan and his roommate, Shayne Trujillo, drove from Denver to Gillette in a vehicle owned and driven by Regan.
- Before the trip, Regan saw Trujillo load approximately one and a half pounds of marijuana into the vehicle.
- Regan explicitly rejected Trujillo's offer to join in a plan to make money distributing the marijuana, stating 'it wasn't worth the risk.'
- Upon arriving in Gillette, Regan drove Trujillo to three different locations.
- At each location, Trujillo got out of the car to deliver marijuana while Regan remained in the vehicle.
- A police officer pulled the vehicle over, detected the odor of marijuana, and a subsequent search revealed the drugs, paraphernalia, and $1,000 cash.
- During a police interview, Regan admitted that a quarter-ounce of the marijuana was his but maintained that the rest belonged solely to Trujillo.
- At trial, Trujillo testified and corroborated Regan's account, admitting that over a pound of the marijuana belonged exclusively to him.
Procedural Posture:
- Patrick J. Regan was tried on a charge of felony possession of marijuana.
- A jury in a Wyoming district court (trial court) found Regan guilty of the charge.
- The trial court sentenced Regan to a term of incarceration, which was suspended in favor of five years of supervised probation and a fine.
- Regan (Appellant) filed a direct appeal of his conviction to the Supreme Court of Wyoming, arguing the evidence presented by the State (Appellee) was insufficient to support the jury's verdict.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Was the evidence presented at trial sufficient to support a verdict that Regan constructively possessed a felony amount of marijuana?
Opinions:
Majority - Davis, Justice.
No, the evidence presented at trial was not sufficient to support a verdict that Regan constructively possessed a felony amount of marijuana. To convict for constructive possession, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused (1) exercised dominion and control over the substance, (2) had knowledge of its presence, and (3) knew it was a controlled substance. The key element of 'dominion and control' requires proof of both the 'power' and the 'intention' to control the contraband. While Regan, as the owner and driver of the car, may have had the power to control the marijuana, the State failed to present any evidence of his intent to do so. Unlike cases where defendants actively participate in drug transactions, Regan was purposefully non-involved; he did not initiate the activity, negotiate sales, or otherwise associate himself with the 'destiny of the marijuana.' His refusal to participate in Trujillo's plan is evidence against his intent. Mere presence and knowledge of drugs in a vehicle, even one owned by the defendant, are insufficient to establish the intent required for constructive possession.
Analysis:
This decision clarifies the 'intent' requirement for constructive possession in Wyoming, particularly in joint-occupancy scenarios. It heightens the evidentiary burden on the prosecution, requiring more than mere proximity, knowledge, and ownership of the premises or vehicle. The court draws a sharp line between passive presence, even with knowledge of ongoing criminal activity, and active participation that demonstrates an intent to control the contraband. This precedent will make it more difficult to secure constructive possession convictions against individuals who are merely companions or drivers for others engaged in drug offenses, forcing prosecutors to produce specific evidence linking the defendant to the drug-related activity itself.
