Ultimately, Ms. Denison was convicted of possession of marijuana. She appeals, challenging the sufficiency of the evidence and the court's exclusion of evidence of her husband's drug involvement. Circumstantial evidence showed that the police found marijuana in all common areas of a home over which appellant had at least joint dominion and control and in close proximity to appellant's personal effects. Appellant's defense was that she was merely a passive resident of a home in which her husband stored his own marijuana. This court's review of the sufficiency of the evidence is limited to a painstaking analysis of the record to determine whether the evidence, when viewed in a light most favorable to the conviction, supports the verdict.
Circumstantial evidence is entitled to as much weight as other evidence.
A conviction based on circumstantial evidence merits stricter scrutiny, but is proper if the circumstances proved are consistent with guilt and inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis. Ms. Denison concedes that the evidence adduced at trial was consistent with the hypothesis that she possessed, or aided her husband in possessing, the marijuana found in her home. However, she argues that the evidence was also consistent with the rational hypothesis that she was merely a resident of the home and that her husband was the sole possessor of the marijuana. A person is guilty of possession of a controlled substance if she knew the nature of the substance and either physically or constructively possessed it. A person may constructively possess a controlled substance alone or with others.