State v. Fox
1985 Utah LEXIS 927, 709 P.2d 316 (1985)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To establish constructive possession of a controlled substance where the accused does not have exclusive control of the premises, the prosecution must prove a sufficient nexus between the accused and the contraband to infer that the accused had both the power and the intent to exercise dominion and control over it.
Facts:
- Gary Fox owned a residence at 249 Harris Street in Ogden, which was the subject of an anonymous tip to police about marijuana cultivation.
- The property contained two opaque greenhouses, one of which was attached to the house and accessible only from the kitchen.
- A police search of the premises uncovered numerous marijuana plants in both greenhouses.
- One bedroom contained men's and women's clothing, marijuana, drug paraphernalia, a book titled 'Marijuana Grower’s Guide,' and a checkbook and bank slips bearing Gary Fox’s name.
- A second bedroom contained men's clothing and an expired identification card for Clive Fox, but no drugs or paraphernalia were found in this room.
- Mail addressed to both Gary and Clive Fox was found within the house.
- Gary Fox owned the property and was billed for gas service, while the telephone service had been listed in Clive Fox's name since 1979.
- Neighbors testified to seeing both Gary and Clive Fox at the house on weekends doing yard work.
Procedural Posture:
- Gary Fox and Clive Fox were charged in a Utah trial court with possession with intent to distribute and production of a controlled substance.
- At the close of the State’s case during the trial, both defendants made a motion to dismiss the charges based on insufficient evidence.
- The trial court denied the motion.
- The trial court found both Gary Fox and Clive Fox guilty of the charges.
- Both defendants, as appellants, appealed their convictions to the Utah Supreme Court, with the State of Utah as the appellee.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Is a defendant's non-exclusive occupancy of a residence where contraband is found sufficient to prove constructive possession, without additional evidence directly linking the defendant to the contraband itself?
Opinions:
Majority - Stewart, Justice
No. A defendant's mere non-exclusive occupancy of a residence where contraband is found is insufficient to prove constructive possession; the evidence must establish a sufficient nexus showing the defendant had both the power and the intent to exercise dominion and control over the contraband. For Gary Fox, the evidence was sufficient because he owned the property and his personal effects were found in the same room as marijuana, paraphernalia, and a grower's guide, creating a reasonable inference of control and intent. The large quantity of plants also supported the charge of intent to distribute. For Clive Fox, the evidence was insufficient because nothing directly linked him to the marijuana beyond his presence at the house, a phone listing in his name, and his ID card in a bedroom free of any contraband. Knowledge and ability to possess do not equal possession without evidence of intent.
Dissenting - Hall, Chief Justice
Yes. When viewed in the light most favorable to the verdict, the evidence was sufficient to convict Clive Fox. The entire house was a 'virtual marijuana production center,' making it reasonable for a fact-finder to infer that any occupant was involved. Evidence showed Clive lived there, the phone was in his name, and neighbors had seen him there over a three-year period. Given the open and obvious nature of the large-scale operation, it was reasonable to infer that both defendants were jointly engaged in growing and possessing the marijuana with intent to sell.
Analysis:
This case refines the doctrine of constructive possession in Utah, particularly in non-exclusive occupancy situations. It establishes that mere presence or association with a location where contraband is found is not enough for a conviction. The ruling requires prosecutors to present specific, individualized evidence connecting the defendant to the contraband to prove both the power and intent to control it. This precedent protects individuals, such as roommates or family members, from being convicted solely based on the criminal activities of others with whom they share a living space.
