The record was simply silent. But given the obvious distinction between the processed marijuana in this case and the whole plants involved in Gallus , the state met its burden of proving that appellant was in possession of over 42.5 grams of marijuana, exclusive of mature stalks. We do not have that claim by appellant here. Appellant contends the record contains insufficient evidence to support his conviction of felony fifth-degree controlled substance crime. The prosecution based its case on circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence is entitled to as much weight as any other kind of evidence.
To sustain a conviction, circumstantial evidence must be consistent with the accused's guilt and must not support any rational or reasonable inference other than that of guilt. Appellant was convicted for unlawful possession of marijuana. The state had the burden of proving the defendant possessed the substance, either physically or constructively, and had actual knowledge of the nature of the substance. Constructive possession exists when police find a substance in a place that is under the defendant's exclusive control and normally inaccessible to others, or, if the substance is in a place where others have access, then the evidence suggests a strong probability that defendant was exercising control over the substance at the time he was caught with the goods. Appellant contends that the evidence does not point unerringly toward him as the person in possession of the marijuana because he had lent his friend his vehicle for the day.