Opinion ID: 1356075
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: The circuit court's jury instructions regarding possession

Text: The circuit court instructed the jury that: . . . The law recognizes two kinds of possession, actual possession and constructive possession. A person who knowingly has direct physical control over a thing at a given time is then in actual possession of it. A person who although not in actual possession knowingly has both the power and the intention at a given time to exercise dominion or control over a thing, either directly or through another person or persons is then in constructive possession of it. The law recognizes also that the possession may be sole or joint. If one person alone has actual or constructive possession of a thing, possession is sole. If two or more persons share actual or constructive possession of a thing, possession is joint. The element of possession has been proved if you find beyond a reasonable doubt that the Defendant had actual or constructive possession, either solely or jointly with others. Mere proximity to the object, mere presence or mere association with the person who does control the object is insufficient to support a finding of possession. Valentine objected to the giving of this instruction on the ground that it was inapplicable to the facts adduced at trial. The only other instruction the jury received regarding possession was that [t]he word possession means conscious and substantial possession, not a mere involuntary or superficial possession or a passing control fleeting and shadowy in nature.