Opinion ID: 72120
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Evidence of Possession

Text: Edica also argues that the evidence was insufficient to support her conviction for possession with intent to distribute marijuana conviction. She claims that there was no evidence that she possessed or exercised control over the marijuana, the trailer, or the vehicle towing the trailer, or that she acted through Zonia. To support this conviction, the Government had to prove that Edica knowingly possessed a controlled substance with intent to distribute it. Patino-Prado, 533 F.3d at 309. “Possession may be actual or constructive, may be joint among several defendants, and may be proven by direct or circumstantial evidence.” Ramos-Cardenas, 524 F.3d at 605. “Constructive possession may be shown by ownership, dominion or control over the contraband itself, or dominion or control over the premises or the vehicle in which the contraband was concealed.” United States v. Salinas-Salinas, 555 F.2d 470, 473 (5th Cir. 1977). “Existence of a ‘working relationship’ between [the defendants] would support an inference of such dominion or control.” United States v. Galvan, 693 F.2d 417, 421 (5th Cir. 1982). The evidence showed that Zonia, the owner of the vehicle towing the trailer and the one who picked up the trailer from Pancho, had constructive possession of the drugs in the trailer. The evidence of the conspiracy between Edica and Zonia to possess with intent to distribute marijuana, discussed above, and Edica’s presence while the trailer was hooked up show the existence of a “working relationship” with Zonia, sufficient to support an inference that Edica exercised joint dominion or control over the drugs. United States v. Moreno, 649 8 No. 08-41362 F.2d 309, 313 (5th Cir. 1981). A reasonable jury could conclude from this evidence that the possession element of this offense was established beyond a reasonable doubt. Jackson, 443 U.S. at 319.